i

READY OR NOT: EMPLOYMENT, RE-ENTRY AND THE

LASTING EFFECTS OF STIGMA AFTER INCARCERATION

BY

TAYLOR ELIZABETH MOONEY

A thesis submitted to the Department of Sociology

Memorial University of Newfoundland In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Master of Arts degree

August 4, 2017

ii

Abstract

In this thesis I explore the how former prisoners experience the transition from incarceration to

employment. Employment has been identified by researchers as an essential element in ex-

prisoners’ community re-entry process. However, the path to attaining employment after

incarceration, particularly meaningful employment, remains complicated. Drawing on in-depth,

semi-structured longitudinal interviews with 24 parolees occurring over a three-year period, I

seek to better understand the experiences of ex-prisoners as they attempt to find work. I aim to

understand whether individuals are prepared to pursue employment immediately upon release

from prison and the factors that impact their readiness, or lack thereof. Upon recognizing that

individuals in the study tended to identify themselves as not ready for employment, I sought to

understand why they were still expected to begin working using Goffman’s (1963) theory of

stigma. I suggest that in many cases, attempting to manage one’s stigmatized status slows

individuals’ return to work. As well, I suggest that the stigma associated with time spent

incarcerated undermines individual credibility, and for this reason, participants’ assertions that

they do not feel ready to begin working are often not accepted.

Keywords: employment reintegration, community re-entry, work transition, desistance, parole,

community corrections

iii

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW & THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................... 4

Understanding Desistance ........................................................................................................ 4Employment and Desistance .................................................................................................... 6Barriers to Finding Employment ............................................................................................ 9

Pre-existing and Incarceration-imposed Barriers to Employment .................................. 9Stigma and the Criminal Record ........................................................................................... 12

The Dilemma of Disclosure ................................................................................................ 17Gatekeepers to Employment: Employer Practices .......................................................... 20Additional Stigma ............................................................................................................... 22Strategies to Improve Employment Prospects ................................................................. 23Attaining Gainful Employment ......................................................................................... 25

Canadian Context ................................................................................................................... 27 CHAPTER 3 : METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 33

The Data ................................................................................................................................... 33The Participants ...................................................................................................................... 35Data Analyses .......................................................................................................................... 37

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 41

Employment as a Condition of Parole .................................................................................. 41Employment Readiness: Recognizing When Employment Becomes Feasible .................. 43

Re-entering an Unfamiliar Community ............................................................................ 45Accessing Social Support Services ..................................................................................... 47Transitioning into Life Outside of Prison ......................................................................... 47Social Interaction after Prison ........................................................................................... 51

Barriers to Employment: Beyond Readiness ....................................................................... 53Perceived Stigma and the Criminal Record ..................................................................... 56

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 59 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 61

Lack of Readiness ................................................................................................................... 62Effects of Seeking Employment Too Soon ............................................................................ 65Stigma, Stereotypes, and Readiness ...................................................................................... 69Implications ............................................................................................................................. 71

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 74 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 77

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

For formerly incarcerated persons, the impact of incarceration is felt long after release.

“Community reintegration,” a somewhat sterile and simplistic term given the often messy and

complicated process it describes, requires releasees to address a multitude of competing needs.

Upon release, an individual must tend to the conditions of their parole, while potentially

balancing other needs such as finding housing and employment, reconnecting with family,

friends, and other social connections, and addressing childcare needs, to name only a few. The

social and economic obstacles that ex-prisoners typically face upon release have the potential to

catalyze recidivism (Boryzycki & Baldry, 2003; Visher, Winterfield, & Coggeshall, 2005).

While some challenges individuals face upon release may have existed before incarceration, such

as histories of abuse, disabilities, or mental illness, others are more directly related to the

damaging effects incarceration can have on a person’s ability to return to the outside world

(Borzycki, 2005).

In order to reintegrate into the community and remain in free society, ex-prisoners’

desistance from crime is essential. Desistance theorists maintain that some level of investment in

the community, through employment or marriage, for example, encourages desistance from

crime (Graffam, Shinkfield, Lavelle, & McPherson, 2004; Maruna & Toch, 2005; Visher,

Winterfield, & Coggeshall, 2004), and that it serves as one of a number of “protective factors”

which aid in desistance from criminal activity (Lösel & Farrington, 2012; Draine, Salzer,

Culhane, & Hadley, 2002).

Employment, in many ways, is central to an individual’s success in the community, as it

provides the financial resources required to attain housing and provide for oneself and

2

dependents (Petersilia, 2003). It can also be conducive to positive social interaction (Rossi, Berk,

& Leniham, 1980) and routine, which may prove stabilizing for former prisoners who find the

lack of structure in the outside world jarring (Haney, 2003). Furthermore, employment can help

former prisoners overcome the stigma of incarceration by demonstrating positive qualities and

social worth as contributing members of society (Uggen, 2000). This is especially true of

employment that highlights an individual’s moral reform—for example, positions that focus on

assisting others, such as a substance abuse counselling (Maruna, 2001). Employment helps to

form a sense of identity (Luyckx, Schwartz, Goossens, & Pollock, 2008; Uggen, 2000), which

can be an essential task for former prisoners who, in some cases, must reconstruct their identity

upon release to overcome the tenacious criminal label incarceration imparts.

While the benefits employment has on community re-entry are clear, the path to attaining

employment after incarceration, particularly meaningful employment, is far more complicated.

Broadly, this study sought to explore the barriers ex-prisoners faced upon attempting to find

work after prison, as well as strategies they used that led to success. Upon analyzing in-depth,

semi-structured, longitudinal interviews with releasees who were attempting to find work,

questions arose about their levels of readiness as they were encouraged by their parole officers to

pursue employment regardless of their level of preparedness, or lack thereof. : Consequently, this

thesis is focused more specifically on three questions:

(i) Are people ready to begin working immediately upon release from prison?

(ii) Which factors impact their readiness?

(iii) Why are individuals who identify themselves as not ready for employment still

expected to begin working?

3

Through reflective thematic coding of interview transcripts, I attempt to use participants’ words

to lend some insight into these questions.

My thesis is comprised of six chapters. Chapter two provides a review of relevant

literature surrounding employment reintegration post incarceration, as well as my theoretical

framework. In chapter three, the methodological processes of how this data was collected and

analyzed is outlined. Chapter four contains my findings, organized by key themes that emerged

from the interview data. In chapter five, I discuss my findings as they relate to existing literature

and examine how they can be understood in the context of Goffman’s (1963) theory of stigma. In

chapter 6, I conclude my thesis by reviewing my research questions and discussing the

implications of my findings for current parole and community reintegration practices.

4

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW & THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter reviews the broad body of scholarly literature detailing the process of

community reintegration and employment reintegration after prison as well as the barriers that

prevent some from doing so. I organize my review of the literature as follow: first, I discuss the

concept of desistance—what exactly is desistance from crime and when does it happen? Next, I

will review scholarly research discussing the relationship (or potential lack thereof) between

employment and desistance. Continuing on, I will discuss the barriers ex-prisoners face finding

employment, despite the potential benefits it may have for their desistance. I frame my study

using Goffman’s (1963) theory of stigma as it relates to the criminal record, and review the

effects this stigma can have on an individual’s attempts to secure work. Finally, I will briefly

outline the provided programming in Canadian federal institutions and the following capacity to

produce releasees who are truly ready to re-enter the community.

Understanding Desistance

Laub and Sampson (2001) conceptualize desistance as an ongoing process of actively

rejecting criminal activity and refer to the specific point-in-time at which the criminal activity

ends as “termination.” The desistance process requires former prisoners to face a number of

obstacles as they work to remain free of crime, and their response to these challenges will dictate

the success and longevity of their life in the community (Gill, 1997; Scott, 2010). In this way,

desistance from crime can be defined as “the causal process that supports the termination of

offending,” and in particular, the individual’s maintained “state of non-offending” (Laub &

Sampson, 2001, p. 11). Maruna and his colleagues (2009) draw on Lemert’s (1951) theory of

5

primary and secondary deviation to identify primary desistance as a lack of criminal activity and

secondary desistance as a change in identity conducive to desistance. Thus, desistance in this

sense is understood in two ways: (1) a lack of criminal activity, and (2) a change in identity.

In trying to understand why desistance occurs, scholars have indicated that desistance

results from a combination of social factors and individual agency (Bottoms & Shapland, 2011;

Bottoms, Shapland, Costello, Holmes & Muir, 2004; LeBel, Burnett, Maruna, & Bushway,

2008). While individual agency is central to a person’s decision to desist from crime, it should

always be considered in the context of the desister’s socioeconomic conditions (Bottoms et al.,

2004). For example, a person experiencing financial strain and a lack of housing or social

support is likely to find it more difficult to desist from criminal activity than someone who is

financially stable and able to live with a family member upon release.

Maruna (2001) explored desistance by comparing the narratives of former prisoners in

Liverpool who remained actively involved in criminal behaviour with those who were desisting

from crime and substance use. He found that the common narrative desisters used to describe

their lives was very different from the one used by those still actively engaged in criminal

activity. Desisters employed what Maruna (2001) termed a “redemption script,” which situated

the narrator’s past criminal activity as being somehow out of their control and disconnected from

their intrinsic sense of self, while also demonstrating their commitment to desistance. Individuals

actively engaged in crime, conversely, used “condemnation scripts” which epitomized their own

pessimistic viewpoints and perceived inability to change. Reflecting on his findings, Maruna

asserts that for desistance to occur, former prisoners must construct an internal narrative for

themselves in which their desistance from crime makes sense for their lives going forward. Their

criminal past in not discounted, but is attributed to some extenuating factor that no longer applies

6

to them. Maruna’s contribution aligns with the ideas of Laub and Sampson (2001) in that he also

puts forth the idea that desistance is an ongoing maintenance process, necessitating maintained

abstinence from crime “in the face of life’s obstacles and frustrations, that is, when ‘everything

builds up’ or one receives ‘some slap in the face’” (p. 26).

Employment and Desistance

This section of my literature review will focus on the relationship between employment

and desistance, beginning with an acknowledgement of the scholarly disagreement regarding

whether employment truly promotes desistance. Next, I will review the various ways

employment has been found to have a positive impact on former prisoners, as well as arguments

that posit the employment of ex-prisoners to be beneficial for the wider community. I will then

discuss the expectation—in the form of a parole condition—for ex-prisoners to find work upon

release. Following this section, I will review the literature documenting barriers former prisoners

face as they attempt to find work.

Based on life-course theory, Sampson and Laub (1992, 1995) suggest that individuals are

more likely to desist from crime as they age due to an increased investment in the community

through marriage, employment, or the birth of children. Employment is often posed as an

essential supporting element for ex-prisoners’ desistance (e.g., Berg & Huebner, 2011; Gunnison

& Helfgott, 2013; Davis, Bahr, & Ward, 2012), although others question the causal direction of

the relationship (e.g., Tripodi, Kim & Bender, 2010; Homant, 1984). In a Norwegian study of

recidivist males, for example, authors found that those who attained employment had already

desisted from crime before doing so, repositioning the directional association between finding

employment and desistance (Skardhamar & Savolainen, 2014). Conversely, in a Canadian study

of formerly federally incarcerated individuals, it was asserted that participants who found

7

employment in the community were almost three times less likely to return to crime than those

who were unemployed (Nolan, Wilton, & Cousineau, 2014), although there remains the question

of whether those who became employed had already desisted before doing so—their point of

“termination” (Sampson & Laub, 2001) is unknown. In a study of former prisoners in the United

States, Uggen (2000) similarly reported that participants over the age of 26 years old were less

likely to reoffend if offered “even marginal employment opportunities” than those who were

unemployed.

Work, particularly gainful employment, can promote desistance by exposing ex-prisoners

to informal social controls, such as consistent monitoring, accountability for work, and

association with law-abiding peers (Davis et al., 2012). As well, employment limits the time an

individual may spend on criminal activities, and their commitment to maintaining their

employment may encourage them to limit time spent with negative associates, thus promoting

desistance (Davis et al., 2012). Furthermore, employment offers the opportunity for former

prisoners to demonstrate their commitment to life as productive members of society. Reports

from the United States and England indicate that some employed former prisoners demonstrate

increased levels of trustworthiness, loyalty, and enthusiasm than the average employee,

potentially in an attempt to counteract the negative connotations that come with having a

criminal record (Devaney, 2011; Gardiner, 2012; Gill, 1997; Jolson, 1975).

Employment can be understood as an essential source of identity (Luyckx et al., 2008),

particularly important for former prisoners as they strive to generate new self-understandings

upon re-entering the free community. Work also benefits former prisoners as they re-enter the

community by providing financial stability, independence, and a sense of self-worth (Laub &

Sampson, 2001; Rosenfeld, Petersilia, & Visher, 2008; Uggen, 2000). The provision of finances

8

can allow individuals to support themselves and their families post release (Petersilia, 2003). In

this way, work can be understood as an essential “building block” required to transition from

incarceration back into life in the community (Visher et al., 2005).

Beyond the benefits employment can have on the individual lives of releasees, research

indicates that employing ex-prisoners can have positive effects on the wider community in the

form of reduced crime, increased public safety, improved perceptions of former prisoners, and

reduced costs for the government and taxpayers (Graffam, Shinkfield, & Hardcastle, 2008). For

this reason, researchers suggest that communities need to provide resources to help ex-prisoners

transition back into society as contributing members (Andress, Wildes, Rechtine, & Moritsugu,

2004; Rahill-Beuler & Kretzer, 1997). In order to reduce the disadvantages that former prisoners

automatically carry based only on their status as having formerly been incarcerated, employment

specialists and other advocates must work to dispel the negative connotations that accompany

that status (Rahill-Beuler & Kretzer, 1994).

The benefits employing former prisoners has for individual desistance and the wider

community promotes an expectation for them to find work upon re-entry. Employment works to

normalize the formerly incarcerated person, demonstrating to the community around them the

scope of their work ethic and social aptitude. For this reason, the need to attain employment is

often recognized by parole boards and enforced in the form of a parole condition (i.e., to find

employment or demonstrate their efforts to do so). Indeed, parole essentially demands that

releasees accept and maintain any employment opportunity that they encounter, despite potential

unsuitability or a lack of readiness on the part of the ex-prisoner (Shivey et al., 2007). As noted

by Demleitner (2002), there is a discrepancy between the requirement for former prisoners to

find employment upon community re-entry and the policies that prevent them from doing so.

9

Pryor and Thompkins (2012) support this notion, stating “…it is counterproductive to expect or

even train ex-offenders to become productive members of society, while simultaneously

restricting access and opportunities into the job market” (p. 439). Perhaps legally stipulating that

someone find employment before they are ready or prepared to do so harms more than it helps.

Barriers to Finding Employment

In this section, I outline personal barriers to employment often faced by ex-prisoners, as

well as those that arise or worsen as a result of incarceration. Then I discuss the stigma that

former prisoners must contend with and its effects on their lives and employment prospects.

Finally, I discuss federal corrections in Canada and the ways it does or does not prepare

prisoners to find employment upon re-entering the community.

Pre-existing and Incarceration-imposed Barriers to Employment

There are various characteristics associated with the “typical” profile of someone who

has spent time in prison that may hinder one’s ability to attain gainful employment. However, I

want to acknowledge that in reviewing these barriers I may be reinforcing the stereotypical

depiction of what a former prisoner looks like, effectively constructing another barrier to

reintegration even as I promote dismantling those featured in this discussion. I would be amiss

not to review the literature dedicated to profiling the different personal barriers to employment

that former prisoners tend to possess, but before I begin I would like to point out that operating

under the assumption that all people who become incarcerated are “a certain way” risks

contributing to the negative associations that people hold about ex-prisoners. As stated by

Maruna, 2001:

…despite the evidence that criminal behaviour is widespread throughout the population and that most criminal careers are short-lived and sporadic, criminological research

10

continues to focus on the static differences between offenders and non-offenders as if these were “types” of people. (p. 6)

Although it may be important to observe trends among people who become incarcerated in order

to identify areas to be addressed to reduce crime going forward, this line of thought may also

promote stereotypical thinking. Furthermore, while some individuals who become incarcerated

may share a set of characteristics that are not conducive to employment, incarceration can

worsen these traits and generate new issues. These barriers will be discussed below, organized by

education, employment experience, health issues, financial strain, housing access, parole

conditions and legal restrictions.

A large proportion of individuals who become incarcerated have low levels of education

and few employment experiences (Petersilia, 2005; Varghese, Hardin, & Bauer, 2009; Varghese,

Hardin, Bauer, & Morgan, 2010). Researchers indicate that most individuals who experience

incarceration have not reached an educational level greater than high school (Travis & Petersilia,

2001) and possess low levels of numeracy and literacy (Harlow, 2003). Hamlyn and Lewis

(2000) found that in a sample of 567 female prisoners, less than half (44%) held employment in

the 12 months prior to their incarceration. Visher, Debus, and Yahner (2008) indicate that lack of

employment experience makes former prisoners particularly vulnerable when looking for work

at release.

Former prisoners are more likely to suffer from health issues, both physical and mental,

negatively impacting their ability to find work after prison. The former prisoner and incarcerated

population has a higher prevalence of mental health problems, some infectious diseases such as

HIV/AIDs, and substance abuse issues (Hammet, Roberts & Kennedy, 2001). Mallik-Kane and

Visher (2008) held longitudinal interviews with 1100 prisoners before and after their release to

find that nearly all participants—eight in ten men and nine in ten women—possessed some form

11

of chronic health issue requiring management. They found that individuals with mental health

problems were most likely to struggle to find housing and employment, and that individuals

suffering from substance abuse problems were more likely to recidivate than other participants.

However, having any health issue—mental, physical, or substance abuse—was also associated

with recidivism. Physical health issues may dismantle an individual’s attempts to find

employment by preventing them from pursuing manual types of labour. Some mental health

problems that former prisoners are prone to and which would hamper a job search include low

self-esteem, depression, and low motivation (Fletcher, 2001). Behavioural issues, such as

problems with authority or a need for anger management, can also have a negative impact on

attempts to find employment. Substance use has been identified as the most prevalent health

issue among prisoners (Travis, Solomon, & Waul, 2001).

Former prisoners are likely to have strained financial resources upon release and may

also face debt as they re-enter the community, complicating their search for employment in that

they may be unable to afford to attend interviews, buy necessary clothing or equipment, or pay

for transportation (Webster, Hedderman, Turnbull, & May, 2001). Renting a house or apartment

often requires providing a list of references as well as first and last month’s rent, which may not

be possible for someone upon release (Pogorzelski, Wolff, Pan, & Blitz, 2005).

The variety of needs one must attend to upon institutional release can compound and

multiply, and the lack of one resource can fuel the lack of another. For example, employment is

needed for an individual to afford housing—as well, stable accommodation is necessary to attain

stable employment, demonstrating competing needs (Graffam et al., 2004). One participant in

Graffam and colleagues’ (2004) study, which conducted semi-structured interviews with 12

former prisoners, noted: “With no place to sleep you get too tired to work. I lost my job” (p.

12

159). Releasees also face reuniting with social connections and navigating the process of

reestablishing their role of responsibility within the family, while also trying to find housing and

childcare, or obtaining necessary documents such as a driver’s license or healthcare card (Finn,

1998).

In addition to the obstacles to obtaining employment mentioned above, parolees may be

forced to contend with restrictive parole conditions. Conditions such as curfews and geographic

travel boundaries can reduce releasees’ access to employment opportunities (Richards & Jones,

2004).

Stigma and the Criminal Record

In this section, I will outline Goffman’s (1963) theory of stigma and connect it to the

effects of having a criminal record. I will then discuss the problem faced by ex-prisoners of

whether or not to disclose and review research on employers’ perceptions of applicants with a

criminal record. I will discuss the effects of the intersection of criminal record stigma with other

stigmatized traits and outline strategies that are sometimes used to mitigate this stigma.

Prejudice is a negative attitude towards someone informed by beliefs based on

stereotypes (Allport, 1954; see Ricciardelli & Moir, 2013). This means that negative

characteristics that are linked to a certain stigmatized trait are assumed of individuals who are

associated with that group (Link & Phelan, 2001). Individuals who are associated with

stigmatized groups are seen as lesser, flawed, or tainted (Goffman, 1963). In the context of

former prisoners, there are negative stereotypes about the “type of person” who commits a crime

(Clow & Esses, 2007; MacLin & Herrera, 2006), and it has been found that the word “criminal”

tends to incite feelings of fear and hostility (Foster & Hagan, 2007).

13

Goffman (1963) identified three types of stigma, one of which being the stigma of

character traits, where a person is perceived as having “blemishes of individual character” (p. 4).

Prejudice against people with a criminal record can be understood as a character trait stigma.

According to Goffman, character trait stigma suggests that the person possessing it is of “weak

will, domineering or unnatural passions, treacherous and rigid beliefs, and dishonesty, these

being inferred from a known record of, for example, mental disorder, imprisonment,

addiction…” (p. 4, emphasis mine). The “branding” effect of the stigma lessens an individual’s

social worth or credibility, causing others to potentially view them as “a less desirable kind – in

the extreme, a person who is quite thoroughly bad, or dangerous, or weak” (Goffman, 1963, p.

3). The disconnect between the stigma-informed stereotypical assumptions of what a person’s

character is and their true character is identified as the emergence of a “virtual social identity,”

(p. 4) which might conflict with someone’s “actual” social identity. In this way, the individual

who becomes represented by their criminal record retains little control over how others view or

understand them, despite their best efforts to present favourably.

A stigma may affect the way someone is perceived by others to the extent that it becomes

a “master status,” (Goffman, 1963) meaning that the stigmatized characteristic comes to define

that person, effectively invalidating any positive attributes they may possess. The burden of a

criminal record is limiting in that it informs others’ judgements of a person and ostensibly

outlines their expected future behaviour. Regardless of its accuracy, this depiction is identified as

a legitimate source of information based on the status of the people who compiled it (Murphy,

Fuleihan, Richards, & Jones, 2011; Myrick, 2013). The stigmatizing nature of criminality is so

persistent that even exonerees become “stigmatized-by association.” (Clow, Ricciardelli, & Cain,

2012). Despite being found innocent, public perception may remain that the exoneree’s character

14

has been negatively impacted by living and interacting with other prisoners (Clow et al., 2012).

Clow and colleagues (2012) found that only one-third of their sample of 115 exonerees identified

themselves as having successfully re-entered society. In fact, Goffman (1963) identified the

tendency for a stigma to spread from a stigmatized person to their social connections as one of

the driving forces of exclusion. This indicates that overcoming the stigma of the criminal record

is an important factor in successful community re-entry post incarceration (LeBel, 2012). The

tenacity of the criminal record has the potential to create a “lifetime of stigmatization,”

particularly in light of its increasing availability for discovery with the digitization of records

(Murphy et al., 2011; Myrick, 2013).

As an additional layer of complication, criminal records are often erroneous, outdated,

and inconsistent (Mukamel, 2001; Myrick, 2013). This means that not only has the person in

question lost the agency to define their self, but the record may present an unnecessarily negative

image of who they are. Myrick (2013) describes the criminal record as “a textual proxy that the

state has authored on its own terms, without input from the people whom it permanently

represents” (p. 73). Furthermore, Myrick indicates that the author(s) of the criminal record is

often concealed, complicating former prisoners’ attempts to rectify errors that misrepresent them.

Through her fieldwork with individuals seeking to expunge their criminal records, Myrick found

that beyond feelings of stigmatization, people felt de-personalized by their criminal records—

“reduced to pieces of personal information that did not represent a holistic identity” (p. 93).

Knowledge of one’s own stigma can result in anxiousness and uncertain behaviour

around others. Goffman (1963) indicates that a person who bears a stigma may feel that they are

perpetually “on.” They work to manage the impression they make through a hyper-awareness of

others’ perceptions of them. Goffman states that, “Each potential source of discomfort for him

15

when we are with him can become something we sense he is aware of, aware that we are aware

of, and even aware of our state of awareness about his awareness” (p. 30). This speaks to former

prisoners’ experiences as they internally question who does and does not know of their criminal

history as they proceed through social interactions.

Another response to bearing a stigma is defensive withdrawal—purposely remaining

silent, averting eye contact, or even avoiding situations involving social interaction in general

(Goffman, 1963). The treatment of ex-prisoners as inferior can result in feelings of isolation as

well as a lack of confidence and trust, leading to obstacles in building and maintaining

relationships (Anazodo et al., 2017). This response to stigmatization would certainly have

adverse effects on attempting to find work by hampering a person’s ability to make the social

connections required to secure a position. Indeed, Goffman identifies attempting to find

employment as an instance wherein a person’s stigma and the limitations imposed by it first

become fully realized.

The responses stigma produces in the stigmatized person compound with effects prison

institutionalization has on releasees as they attempt to re-enter free society. Institutionalization is

understood as the process by which individuals’ perceptions and behaviours are altered as a

result of an institutional environment (Haney, 2003)—in this context, prison. Haney (2003)

outlines several ways the process of institutionalization can negatively impact releasees’ social

functioning. Individuals may become hypervigilant and suspicious of others in response to living

in an institution where the potential for danger might be all-encompassing. This may also cause

some individuals to project an aura of toughness in an attempt to distance themselves from

others. Developing this image of toughness might require individuals to closely monitor

themselves and control their emotions, and psychologically distance themselves from others—

16

Haney (2003) notes that this may result in individuals develop “emotional flatness that becomes

chronic and debilitating in social interaction and relationships and find that they have created a

permanent and unbridgeable distance between themselves and other people” (p. 82). These

factors would therefore have a negative impact on releasees’ social functioning. A reduced sense

of self-worth and understanding of personal value is also identified by Haney (2003) as a result

of institutionalization. Haney suggests that the compromised social status and stigma that result

from being a prisoner may become internalized, causing prisoners to understand themselves as

inferior and undeserving of a “normal” life. These aspects of institutionalization have clear

negative impacts on the pursuit of employment, as gaining employment tend to be an interaction-

based process. The stigmatized personality that emerges as a result of institutionalization isolates

releasees from other people, and this distance is intensified by individuals’ attempts to manage

their stigmatized status.

I elected to use Goffman’s (1963) theory of stigma to address the research questions put

forth in this thesis because I suspect that the stigma individuals feel following release from

prison impacts their feelings of readiness to enter employment. As outlined by Goffman,

understanding one’s own stigma, and the suspicion that this stigma is obvious to others, can

negatively impact individuals’ social interactions. Individuals must learn to manage the stigma

they carry, either by learning to conceal it, or to present it in a way that minimizes the damages it

causes. Attempting to find work necessitates interactions with others—interactions that are

inherently imbued with an uneven power dynamic between the employer and the prospective

employee. When the prospective employee is stigmatized, this uneven power dynamic is

exacerbated as the stigmatized individual must also manage their stigma in such a way that best

17

positions them to be awarded the position. Recall the research questions I attempt to answer with

this thesis:

(i) Are people ready to begin working immediately upon release from prison?

(ii) Which factors impact their readiness?

(iii) Why are individuals who identify themselves as not ready for employment still

expected to begin working?

I use stigma to attempt to explain that individuals are not ready to begin working immediately

after prison, as they are still learning to navigate the stigma they bare following incarceration.

Furthermore, I believe their stigmatized status can be used to understand why individuals are

expected to find work immediately upon release, even if they identify themselves as not feeling

ready for employment. These linkages will be explored more thoroughly in the discussion

section of this thesis.

The Dilemma of Disclosure

Stigma is often discussed in terms of an attribute, but Goffman (1963) indicates that a

discussion of relationships, rather than attributes, should be employed, as it is through the

perceptions of others that a stigmatized person becomes discredited. People with a history of

incarceration are not immediately discredited upon interacting with someone else, but remain

“discreditable” if their status as a former prisoner is uncovered (Goffman, 1963). The problem of

disclosure arises—is it best to inform others of their stigma-garnering status, or to attempt to

conceal it? Goffman indicates that this dilemma creates a confusing inner-dialogue for the

stigmatized individual: “To display or not display; to tell or not to tell; to let on or not to let on;

to lie or not to lie; and in each case, to whom, how, when, and where” (p. 58). This dilemma is

especially prominent during the process of finding work. Honesty about their past could limit

18

their job prospects, but attempting to conceal it may also prove injurious to the individual’s

perceived character in that it signifies moral ineptitude, confirming others’ suspicions about

people who hold criminal records (Anazodo et al., 2017; Adler, 1993). Therefore, if an applicant

is asked about criminal convictions during the screening process for a job, they face potentially

negative implications if they say yes or no, while the choice to refrain from answering may also

garner suspicion (Anazodo et al., 2017).

Through in-depth qualitative interviews with 15 male parolees in New Jersey and New

York, United States, Harding (2003) identified three strategies participants used when addressing

their criminal history: non-disclosure, full disclosure, or conditional disclosure. Harding also

suggests that an ex-prisoner’s decision to disclose a history of incarceration may be contingent

on labour market conditions and individual perceptions of stigma. In Winnick and Bodkin’s

(2008) survey of 450 male prisoners, participants preferred “preventative telling”—revealing

their criminal history before disclosure becomes a problem—although preferred methods of

stigma management seemed to vary by race. The study showed that black ex-prisoners were

more likely to preventatively disclose their criminal history due to pre-existing social stigma

based on race, while white participants were less likely to engage in preventative telling because

they perceived themselves as risking a loss of privilege. Non-disclosure is not a feasible strategy

for some ex-prisoners due to background checks or parole conditions that stipulate transparency.

As well, Goffman (1963) points out that concealing a discreditable secret, such as history of

incarceration, takes on a more serious meaning if it is found out by close social connections—for

example, co-workers. Choosing not to conceal one’s criminal history may result in having to

navigate a relationship with someone who accepts them but is unaware of their stigma and would

hold prejudice towards them if it was known (Goffman, 1963).

19

Goffman terms the attempt at hiding one’s stigma while proceeding through life as

“passing” – that is, passing as someone who is considered to be “normal.” The stigmatized

individual may choose to reveal their status to some contacts while concealing it from others. For

example, a former prisoner may find it pertinent to disclose his criminal record to his employer

in order to avoid complications in the future while seeing no reason to do the same with casual

acquaintances. This can become a complex process as the ex-prisoner works to mentally

catalogue how much he has told and to whom (Goffman, 1963). This means that while passing is

attainable, it may decrease the quality of life of the person keeping the secret.

Full disclosure, as stated by Harding (2003), “requires perseverance, self-confidence, and

the ability to be an adept performer” (p. 581), as it requires the ex-prisoner to take control of the

social situation and present their self as hireable despite having a criminal history. The strategy

of conditional disclosure involves initially concealing past convictions but then revealing them at

an opportune time after having proved their ability to be a good worker. Harding describes this

tactic as potentially the most strategic of the three, noting that “He gets his foot in the door and

still appears to be honest, defying the ex-convict stereotype by later admitting the mistake of

concealing his felony conviction” (p. 584). Once one’s stigmatized attribute is known, Goffman

(1963) indicated that some may attempt to manage their stigma by devoting a great deal of effort

to mastering activities at which they would stereotypically be deficient. This tactic was evident

in James and colleagues’ (1984) study of 112 black men working in North Carolina, United

States, where researchers found that participants had a tendency to overwork themselves in an

attempt to overcome stereotypes associated with their race. Disclosing one’s stigmatizing history

also provides the opportunity for some level of control over others’ perceptions through choosing

how the events are presented. For example, Myrick (2013) found that the participants in her

20

study who found themselves misrepresented through their criminal records did not attempt to

minimize the events documented in the criminal record, but instead wished to provide context.

This process, termed “covering” by Goffman (1963), can be a way for socially stigmatized

individuals to repair their image: they accommodate the viewpoint of those who view them

negatively while at the same time working to renegotiate that image.

The dilemma of disclosure—the question of who to tell, and how much to reveal—is so

great that Decker and colleagues (2014) recommend addressing disclosure techniques as a key

tenet of employment re-entry programming. They assert that best tactic is to honestly account for

time spent incarcerated, as it is likely that their employer will eventually be made aware of it

regardless, yet emphasize the importance of developing a coherent narrative that clearly

demonstrates personal betterment post incarceration. Paralleling Maruna’s (2001) concept of the

redemption script, Decker and colleagues assert the importance of developing a “re-entry script”

which demonstrates commitment to desistance and a contextualization of one’s past.

Gatekeepers to Employment: Employer Practices

The stigmatizing effects of the criminal record are well-documented through research

demonstrating employers’ prejudice against hiring formerly incarcerated individuals (e.g.,

Albright & Denq, 1996; Pager & Qullian, 2005; Harris & Keller, 2005; Pager, 2003). For

example, Chui and Cheng (2013) indicate that in their qualitative study of the experiences of

sixteen men who had recently been released from Hong Kong prisons, employers would hire

former prisoners but would find some way to terminate their employment upon discovering their

history of incarceration. Participants in this study indicated that they felt unfairly prejudiced

against, even though employers would not indicate their termination as being due to their

criminal record and would instead cite poor work performance or unsuitability for the job. On a

21

more encouraging note, Swanson, Langfitt-Reese and Bond (2012) found that in a study of 128

employers across nine different states and from diverse backgrounds (i.e., entry-level to skilled

work) regarding hiring practices, 63 percent of participants indicated having knowingly hired at

least one person with a criminal record. Furthermore, few of the participating businesses in the

study had written policies barring the employment of former prisoners. Giguere and Dundes

(2002) also indicate that the majority (53%) of the 62 Baltimore employers they surveyed would

hypothetically be willing to hire a former prisoner. Those employers who indicated greater

familiarity with former prisoners were more likely to indicate willingness to take advantage of a

subsidized wage program that allowed them to hire individuals with criminal records. However,

Pager and Quillian (2005) discovered, through comparing a survey of employers in high crime

rate areas (Dallas and Houston, Texas, United States) with an audit study of the same employers,

that although a number of employers indicated in the survey that they would be willing to hire

former prisoners, few of them actually followed through with this sentiment in practice.

Rasmusen (1996) suggests that employers’ acceptance of individuals with criminal

records may be affected by the rate of crime in their specific area, indicating areas with high

rates of crime are less likely to stigmatize individuals with a history of incarceration, and

therefore more likely to employ them: “…if crime is sufficiently prevalent, a criminal record

loses its informativeness and thus its stigmatizing effect” (p. 541). This could be a result of the

criminal record becoming normalized due to its prevalence, or perhaps of employers becoming

less able to avoid individuals with criminal records. It has also been suggested that employers are

more likely to hire former prisoners in times of low unemployment (Henry, 2000; Shapiro,

2000).

22

Additional Stigma

Some criminal backgrounds are discriminated against more than others – for example,

Albright and Denq’s (1996) study of the attitudes of 83 Houston and Dallas employers

demonstrated that participants were especially unwilling to hire people who had been

incarcerated for violent crimes or crimes against children. As well, Pager (2007) used an audit-

style study to discover that employers are more likely to consider hiring individuals who have

been convicted of drug crimes than violent offenders. If a former prisoner bears another socially

unfavourable trait, they may be further discriminated against by employers and incur what

Gausel and Thorissen (2014) term “multiple stigma.” For example, an employer may hold more

prejudice towards individuals with a history of mental illness combined with a history of

incarceration compared to someone whose only stigmatizing attribute is their status as a former

prisoner (Gausel & Thorissen, 2014). Former prisoner job applicants who are also visible racial

minorities have been found to face additional barriers to attaining employment (Holzer, Raphael

& Stoll, 2006; Pager, Western & Sugie, 2009; Pager, 2003). Pager and colleagues (2009)

conducted an audit study in New York City of applicants with differing racial and criminal

backgrounds to low-wage jobs. Results indicated that having a criminal record garners a

significant negative effect on employment outcomes, and that this effect is exacerbated for Black

applicants. Holzer and colleagues (2006) found that employers who used criminal background

checks were more likely to hire Black applicants or applicants with resume gaps, suggesting that

employers who do not use criminal background checks may avoid applicants with attributes that

are associated with a history of incarceration. Raphael (2006) discussed the potential unintended

consequences of time-limited criminal records in this context, cautioning that time limits on

criminal history information may prompt employers to use their own means to avoid individuals

23

with a criminal history, thus assuming certain traits may signify past criminal involvement (e.g.

racial minorities, individuals who receive public assistance, fragmented employment history).

These findings bolster support for the use of criminal record checks in that they can redeem

individuals with no criminal history but who bear attributes associated with incarceration.

However, the problem of the criminal record for those who possess it remains.

Strategies to Improve Employment Prospects

Just as some attributes can exacerbate the stigma former prisoners’ face as they attempt to

find work, there are also characteristics that can reduce the level of discrimination with which

applicants with a history of incarceration must contend. In their study of Dallas and Houston

employers, Albright and Denq (1996) found that formerly incarcerated applicants with

vocational training or a college diploma had a better chance of acquiring employment. Twenty

years later, Cundiff (2016) used audit methodology to find that educational attainment has the

potential to mitigate the negative impact of having a criminal record, but not until a bachelor’s

degree is earned. Formerly incarcerated individuals are also more likely to attain employment if

they can demonstrate consistent work history, as demonstrated by Visher and colleagues (2011)

through a study of the employment experiences of 740 male releasees in the United States.

Incarceration, however, does hinders individuals from attaining the aforementioned

attributes. Most institutions in Canada, while acknowledging the value of higher education, do

not offer educational programming beyond the GED, perhaps due to budgetary constraints or

lack of personnel (discussed below). Furthermore, incarceration creates gaps in employment

history. Even if a prisoner manages to find employment within the institution, they are faced

with either being untruthful in presenting it on their resume or admitting upfront their history of

24

incarceration. The stigma of incarceration can also extend to any credentials or work experience

gained while institutionalized, effectively rendering them nullified (Blesset & Pryor, 2013).

Former prisoners with poor history of employment and few educational credentials can

bolster their chances of acquiring employment with a strong social network (Graffam et al.,

2004; Lin, 2001). Individuals may learn of job opportunities through their social network, and

social connections can increase an applicant’s chance of finding employment by acting as a

reference for potential employers—it is possible that if an applicant’s value is guaranteed by an

outside source, the employer is more likely to see their worth (Lin, 2001). A study conducted by

the Vera Institute of Justice tracked the employment patterns of ex-prisoners and found that most

of those who found employment post release “were either rehired by former employers or had

help from family and friends” (as cited in Travis, 2005, p. 163). Connecting with employers prior

to release also improved employment prospects (Visher et al., 2011). The ability to do this would

be facilitated by having a strong history of employment or a good social network to put prisoners

in touch with potential employers.

Imprisonment results in gaps in employment history, and time away from the workforce

can also result in skill erosion and unfamiliarity with workplace technological advancements

(Decker, Spohn, Ortiz, & Hedburg, 2014). For this reason, it is preferable for former prisoners to

be in a situation where they can be open about having been imprisoned, in that it would allow

them to better access the support services they require to integrate into their job. Finding

employment through social connections may increase the likelihood that they will be able to

speak openly about their history of incarceration, and it has been suggested that individuals who

do manage to attain employment do so through dissolving the stigma of incarceration with social

connections (Blesset & Pryor, 2013). Attaining employment through a social connection or being

25

rehired by an employer with whom the ex-prisoner already has an established relationship allows

the individual to avoid the complications imposed by their former prisoner status (Blesset &

Pryor, 2013, p. 445). Again, however, the isolation and stigmatizing nature of incarceration

impedes an individual’s ability to maintain their social connections (Western, Kling, & Weiman,

2001).

Despite the steps individuals might take to reduce the stigma of incarceration, Graffam

and colleagues (2004) found, through conducting semi-structured interviews in Australia with

convicted former prisoners and correctional service workers, that having a criminal record

overshadowed any educational attainments or training former prisoners might have. Thus, the

criminal record becomes “…the most defining aspect of their employability” (Anazodo, Chan,

Riccardelli, 2017).

Attaining Gainful Employment

If a former prisoner is able to find work, the type of employment they are able to attain

may be affected by their prior incarceration. In the United States, individuals with history of

incarceration are barred from employment that puts them in contact with vulnerable populations,

such as seniors, children, or sick people (Harrison & Schehr, 2004). This prevents them from

working in healthcare, childcare, and residential care facilities. As well, former prisoners are

barred from working in law enforcement in the United States (Harrison & Schehr, 2004).

Through the analysis of the earnings records of former prisoners released from correctional

institutions in Virginia, United States, from the fiscal years of 1999 to 2003, Lichtenberger

(2006) found that the sectors least likely to employ former prisoners were in the areas of public

administration, healthcare, scientific and technical services, and finance and insurance.

Individuals can also be barred from certain types of employment if employment caveats are

26

imposed on their parole conditions—for example, if the individual’s crime was related to

computer use, they may be legally banned from pursuing employment related to computers

(Kerley & Copes, 2004).

Conversely, it was found that the areas former prisoners were most likely to find

employment in were secondary sector industries, like construction, mining, and manufacturing

(Lichtenberger, 2006). Nally and colleagues (2011) found that temporary employment agencies

are a major employer of former prisoners—a precarious and unstable form of employment. It

was also noted that former prisoners were employed in food services, as well as transportation

and warehousing services (Nally et al., 2011).

It is possible that not all types of employment promote desistance—in particular, stable

work with good working conditions and sustainable wages has been highlighted as most

effective (Finn, 1998; Graffam et al., 2008; Harrison & Schehr, 2004; Uggen, 2000). Because

formerly incarcerated people face limited employment options, they are more likely to settle for

low-paying, unstable, precarious work that lacks benefits, union rights, and is more likely to have

dangerous working conditions (Harding, 2003). Furthermore, employers might be aware of

former prisoners’ desperation to find work, making them easy to exploit (Atkinson & Rostad,

2003)—for example, employers may take advantage of former prisoners by overworking them

(Purser, 2012). In light of the poor quality of work they are most likely to attain, former prisoners

may be enticed by the thought of returning to the perceived benefits of crime (Gill, 1997;

Waldfogel, 1994).

Maruna (2001) points out that work can be inherently rewarding, or it can be punishing.

Some jobs are much more likely to be experienced as punishing, and if an individual perceives

their work as punishing, they may see that as a reason to reoffend (Maruna, 2001). Furthermore,

27

Maruna (2001) argues that forced labour as punishment, such as picking up debris on the side of

the highway, will turn people away from wanting to pursue work: “For many, the psychological

lesson of coerced, hard labour may be that work is punishment and something to be avoided” (p.

128). Conversely, providing opportunities for formerly or currently incarcerated people to

provide volunteer support, such as at animal shelters or homeless shelters, may inspire them to

further pursue other generative activities in the place of criminal activities, thus desisting from

crime (Maruna, 2001). In this way, it is clear that the type of work a former prisoner is able to

find is an important factor in fostering desistance. As well, attaining some type of generative

employment that is embedded in virtue, such as substance abuse counselling, for example, can

facilitate former prisoners in shedding the stigma that accompanies having a criminal record and

reformulating their identity, a feat not made possible by low-level employment (Maruna, 2001).

It is possible that the unstable, unskilled work that is most readily available to former prisoners

might discourage individuals from remaining employed, ultimately providing encouragement to

pursue the perceived benefits of criminal activity (Gill, 1997; Waldfogel, 1994).

In light of the perceived benefits employment seems to have on the desistance process

and the complications former prisoners face as they attempt to find work, it would logically

follow that addressing employment needs be an important part of the rehabilitative goals of

incarceration. In the next section, I will outline some characteristics of federal incarceration and

release in Canada and discuss the ways in which the need for employment is or is not addressed

by institutionally-offered programming.

Canadian Context

This research is illuminated by the experiences of releasees in Ontario, Canada, who were

recently released from federal prisons at the time of their interviews. In Canada,

28

provinces/territories are responsible for individuals who are convicted of a crime and receive

sentences of less than two years, or who receive such community sentences as fines, probation,

or community service, while individuals who receive sentences of two years or more are the

responsibility of the federal government (CSC, 2014b). The Correctional Service of Canada is

the governing body responsible for those who are convicted of a crime and receive a sentence of

two years or more during their time spent incarcerated and on parole (CSC, 2016). There were

39,623 incarcerated individuals in Canada on an average day in 2014/2015, 15,168 of whom

were in federal custody (Reitano, 2016). The incarceration rate in Canada in 2014/2015 was 85

per 100,000 adult population, with the federal incarceration rate in particular resting at 53 per

100,000 adult population (Reintano, 2016). Canada’s incarceration rate is intermediate compared

with other countries in the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development with a rate

that is about one-sixth of that of the United States, yet higher than many European countries of

similar socioeconomic development (Statistics Canada, 2015).

Federally incarcerated individuals can apply to receive full parole after serving a third of

their sentence or seven years, whichever is less. Full parole allows individuals to serve a portion

of their sentence in the community, during which time they must maintain certain conditions of

release designed to reduce the risk of recidivism, and must regularly meet with a parole officer

and sometimes the RCMP. Day parole is, in many ways, the same as full parole, but the

individual is required to live in a halfway house or a similar facility in the community which still

provides some aspect of supervision and support. On an average day in 2014/2015, the CSC

supervised 7,895 individuals on day parole, full parole or statutory release (Reitano, 2016).

Prisoners in Canada undergo a series of assessments aimed to determine the risk they

may pose as well as areas they need to address in order to desist from crime (Ricciardelli, 2014).

29

An individual is assessed based on dynamic and static risk factors that may contribute to their

criminality—dynamic factors referring to factors that may be amenable to change, and static

factors referring to facets of an individual’s personal history which are unchangeable (Griffiths,

Dandurand, & Murdoch, 2007). Based on these assessments, the Criminal Profile and

Correctional Plan are developed. In identifying areas of need, the prisoner or ex-prisoner’s parole

officer can ostensibly recommend strategies for improvement. These are communicated though

“measurable, positive goal statements” (CSC, 2015). Dynamic risk factors can be addressed by

institutionally-offered and community-based programming and treatment services, and include

needs related to employment, education, substance use, housing, attitudes, cognitive skills, and

social networks (Griffiths et al., 2007). The “Employment Domain Indicators” section of the

Dynamic Factor Identification and Analysis questions the interviewee’s employment history,

their employment status at the time of arrest, and their work stability (CSC, 2015). It also takes

into account marketable work skills obtained through training or experience; interviewee

satisfaction with their own work skills; and the interviewee’s self-identified ability to work with

others (CSC, 2015). The interviewee’s attitudes regarding employment are assessed based on

their perception of their own employability and their demonstrated work ethic (CSC, 2015). This

category also takes into account whether the interviewee’s income before arrest was principally

or partially derived by illegal activity (CSC, 2015). Based on these factors, parole officers can

prescribe conditions or required activities that are meant to address any employment-related

deficits. Within the Correctional Plan, there is included “an initial education, vocational and

employment plan that will address the offender's needs and identify the expectations for

behaviour, skill or knowledge development related to work placements and future community

employment” (CSC, 2015). Ostensibly, this plan would include participating in employment

30

programming, pursuing volunteer work opportunities, pursuing institutional employment

opportunities, and upon release, demonstrating attempts to find and maintain employment.

Upon conditional release, these static and dynamic risk factors are translated into

“Conditions of Release” (CSC, 2016b). Standard conditions of release are applied to everyone

and include keeping the peace and obeying the law and reporting regularly to a parole officer

(CSC, 2014b). A parolee may also be required to observe “special” conditions of release, which

are formulated and prescribed on an individual basis based on a person’s dynamic and static risk

factors. A parolee must observe all standard and special conditions that are prescribed to them; if

they fail to do so, the Parole Board of Canada reserves the right to revoke that person’s parole

and return them to prison (CSC, 2014b).

Theoretically, the work to address these dynamic factors should begin within the

institution. However, the programming and opportunities for improvement that are realistically

offered within the institution are limited. An individual with great need to improve their

employability can be motivated to attain work experience, volunteer, create social connections,

and collect certifications, but their imprisonment may make it impossible to do so. The CSC

acknowledges that addressing dynamic risk factors through institutionally-offered programming

and education offers reintegrating individuals their best chance at desistance (CSC, 2007), but

there is a disconnect between this sentiment and the capacity for a prisoner to take action while

incarcerated. Although CSC mandates that “it shall provide a range of programs designed to

address the needs of offenders and contribute to their successful reintegration into the

community” (Corrections and Conditional Release Act, 1992, sec. 76), uncertainty remains

regarding whether this assertion is realized. In Ricciardelli’s (2014) qualitative study exploring

the incarceration experiences of 56 Canadian former prisoners, her participants indicated a

31

paucity of beneficial programs or supports for fostering personal growth, noting those that did

exist were lacking in quality. Limited programming may arise in Canadian prisons due to budget

and personnel constraints, and programming may be offered with varying consistency between

institutions based on differing prisoner needs and staffing (Ricciardelli, 2014).

The administration of programming for an entire prison population is generally overseen

by one or two programming managers, constituting a very low ratio of programmers to prisoners

(Ricciardelli, 2014). Theoretically, prisoners should be assessed on a regular basis in order to

determine their personal programming needs and the progress they have made towards their

identified rehabilitative goals—however, developing programming for an entire prison

population while continuing to take into account the needs of each individual prisoner is nearly

impossible due to strained resources (Ricciardelli, 2014). Despite this, the CSC is realistically a

world leader in the provision of correctional programming (CSC, 2009). Although there are

indications that programming provided by the CSC may be lacking in quality, at least

programming exists to build upon and there is discussion around its improvement (Ricciardelli,

2014). In a 2009 evaluation of the CSC’s correctional programming, provided programs included

those for violent offenders, sex offenders, substance abuse, family violence prevention, and

Aboriginal offenders. There is no mention of employment-related programming. There was an

overarching sentiment among participants in Ricciardelli’s (2014) study that the programming

currently offered targets participants’ “cognitive self” (p. 191)—that is, their internal sense of

morality and willingness to change. However, participants indicated that if prisoners had not yet

come to the decision on their own to desist, being forced to participate in the programming

would not hold any benefit for them. Instead, participants emphasized the need for prisoners to

learn such life skills as “cooking, managing finances, trades or skills that could be used to

32

acquire employment, how to make grocery lists” (p. 191). Rather than the programming

currently provided, Ricciardelli’s participants advocated for more hands-on training that might

impart the skills needed to find employment. Taking these points into consideration, it is difficult

to connect the imposed parole condition of finding and maintaining employment with any

institutionally provided opportunities to improve one’s chances of doing so.

33

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

The Data

Longitudinal, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 men and

women on conditional release over a three-year period. Interviewee recruitment was tied to

participation in Klink, a program designed to support releasees as they enter the workforce after

prison. Klink was a pilot program overseen by the St. Leonard’s Society of Toronto, a non-profit,

non-religious charitable organization that strives to ease individuals’ transition into employment

following correctional release. The program was originally funded by an $87,000 grant from

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (now Employment and Social Development

Canada), and was meant to adhere to a variant of the Service Subsidization business model

wherein Klink would provide a product or service to the market and use the proceeds to fund

services for its clients. Klink combined an employment skills training program with a social

enterprise that provided clients with a period of employment. The first week focused on skill-

building, such as practice interviews and résumé workshops. Following this first week, clients

participated in an employment placement lasting three to five weeks at a coffee roasting or boat

washing company, the length of which fluctuated as the program developed. Upon completion of

the work placement, there was potentially an opportunity for longer-term employment.

Participation in the program provided clients with a line for their résumés and a reference to

support their chances of attaining future employment opportunities.

Klink participants took part in interviews that were designed to help them voice their

experiences as they transitioned from incarceration to community living and sought

34

employment—the struggles they faced, factors that eased the process, and aspects of Klink that

they found useful or unhelpful. To garner insight into how participants’ experiences evolved as

they spent time in the community and labor market, initial interviews were complimented, when

possible, by follow-up interviews three to six months later, then 12 to 18 months later, and again

toward the end of the study.1 A demographic survey was used in conjunction with the interviews

to document criminal and institutional histories.

Study participation was voluntary at each stage, and all potential participants were made

aware of the study by case workers at the day reporting centre where the employment program

was offered. Interviews were conducted in person whenever possible, but due to geography and

work hours, some were conducted by phone to accommodate schedules. An interview guide was

constructed and used, but discarded when conversation flowed. Interviews were at least an hour

in duration, and the audio recordings were transcribed by research assistants. Ethics approval

was obtained and each participant provided informed consent.

These interviews sought to give releasees the opportunity to express, on their own terms,

the experiences they had as they attempted to find work upon their release. In a way, this

research serves to counteract the assessments that prisoners are so often burdened with—too

often, the responsibility for determining the needs of prisoners are outsourced to professionals

such as psychologists, case workers, or counsellors (see Foucault, 1977, p. 20). Therefore, this

research aims to provide a platform to those individuals whose voices are often silenced, and my

work as the author will be only to contextualize the participants’ sentiments with the current

body of academic literature surrounding community re-entry and within relevant theoretical

models.

1 Given contacting some participants took coordination, efforts and tracking (at times to no avail), follow up interviews were not at precise intervals despite best efforts.

35

The Participants

Six cohorts of participants were followed over a period of three years, from 2012 to 2014.

The first consisted of nine men on parole, between the ages of 22 and 45, with a mean age of 32

and a median age of 31. The second cohort included three participants, two male and one female

between 25 and 53 years of age, with a mean average age of 41.5 and a median of 47. The third

cohort consisted of four male participants, between the ages 21 and 47, with an average age of 32

and median age of 30. The fourth cohort was three male participants, between the ages 25 and

37, with an average age of 29 and median age of 26. The fifth cohort of three male participants

between the ages 30 and 38, had an average age of 32.5 and median age of 30, while the sixth

cohort included two participants, one male and one female, age 21 and 36 years.

Of these participants, 23 were Canadian Citizens. Ethnic/racial identity was self-reported

as: White (n=7), Black (n=13), East Indian (n=1), Hispanic (n=2), Hispanic/Black/Aboriginal

(n=1). A total of 13 participants had children who they identified as their own (with the

exception of one who had step-children, all were biological children). Only one participant

entered prison married and was still married post-incarceration; another was newly engaged and

two were in serious relationships. Three parolees had entered prison in long-term common-law

partnerships, and one was no longer in the relationship after incarceration (the other two still

were). Two participants were divorced, but one had re-married, and 11 were single before and

after incarceration.

The participants’ educational profiles were quite diverse as well. Twenty-three

participants had gained their GED (i.e., graduate equivalency diploma; most were earned while

in prison), one had less than high school, one had some college experience, and another two

participants held a university degree, while two had some university experience. All but one (i.e.,

36

23) of the participants identified as in need of income; one said he was “good for money.”

Among the residential/living arrangements of the participants, 15 lived in a halfway house, one

in an Aboriginal healing shelter, four with a family member, two were staying in a homeless

shelter, one had moved out of a homeless shelter and into an apartment, and another was living

in a room in a home that he described as being in a very “bad” area.

Eleven men had served previous provincial sentences, and 10 had formerly been charged

as a youth and spent time in a youth detention centre. Only two of the men/women in our sample

were released from their second or third federal sentence, thus 22 participants were on parole

after their first time in federal prison—most were released on statutory release rather than parole.

The parolees’ sentences had ranged from two years to life, but participants served from 16

months in prison to over twenty-two years (based on information provided—one participant was

unclear about his time served, and the issue was not pressed). Two participants had received a

Long Term Offender designation and all others were actively on parole. The range of criminal

convictions included: criminality related to domestic violence, drug-related convictions (both

possession and trafficking), property offence convictions (e.g., theft, break and entry),

cybercrimes, violent offence convictions (e.g., assault, robbery, forcible confinement, possession

of firearms), sex-related convictions, attempted murder, manslaughter, and first and second

degree murder(s). All of the men and women in our sample had served time in reception, nine

had served in a maximum secure facility, 20 in a medium secure, and 12 in a minimum secure

prison. At the time of interview, one participant had already experienced a parole breach and had

returned to prison as a result. He was released anew at the conclusion of the study.

Overall, of the 24 participants, four parolees had returned to prison during the course of

the evaluation, including one person who had secured full-time employment, while another had

37

been suspended. Post-evaluation, another parolee has returned to prison. More positively, seven

have acquired and remained in full-time gainful employment positions (two in “management”

positions), one is in a part-time position, and two, who were previously employed, are now in

school full time; six participants remain unemployed. Two participants were unaccounted for

upon completion of the evaluation—no one had been able to reach them to confirm their

employment or parole statuses.

Data Analyses

Interview transcripts underwent semi-grounded thematic analysis. I used NVivo software

to employ a variety of coding techniques, beginning with an a priori coding scheme (Fereday &

Muir-Cochrane, 2006) which consisted of descriptive themes drawn from the interview guide

and literature review. These broad, preliminary themes organized the interview information into

the following categories: “Legal Barriers to Employment”; “Personal Barriers to Employment”;

“Incarceration Experience”; “Interpersonal Barriers to Employment”; “Thoughts Regarding

Klink”; and “Administrative Barriers to Employment.” After this preliminary analysis, I

employed a semi-grounded approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). I read and re-read the transcripts

multiple times in order to identify emergent themes, allowing me to further break down the

transcripts in order to identify patterns across cases, comparing the similar and differing

experiences of participants. Using this grounded approach, I reorganized my coding scheme

using the following emergent themes: “Biographical Information”; “Community Re-entry”;

“Stigma”; “Incarceration Experience”; “Employment”; “Interpersonal”; “Klink Program”; and

“Parole.” Each of these themes was assigned as a “parent node” on NVivo. At this stage in the

process, the interview transcripts were coded independently by my peer using the scheme that

resulted from the combination of a priori and grounded codes. I compared her coded material

38

with mine to ensure a qualitative variant of inter-rater reliability (Armstrong, Gosling, Weinman,

& Mareau, 1997), a measure taken to safeguard against personal bias by ensuring the coded

content was consistent.

Following the assignment of parent nodes using the combination of a priori and

grounded approaches, nodes were further broken down into “child” nodes. This process resulted

in an overwhelming amount of specific nodes, some of which, throughout the process, had

become poorly organized. I re-read the transcripts twice more and employed axial coding

(Saldaña, 2015), which was used to disaggregate and then link and analyze these emergent

themes and subthemes to create a cohesive and organized image of the challenges releasees faced

during employment reintegration. This process allowed me to amalgamate and reclassify some of

the nodes, ultimately resulting in a thorough, cohesive categorization of data, facilitating the

comparison of experiences and sentiments across cases (Boyatzis, 1998). Following this process,

each parent node was separated into two to fourteen “child nodes,” and each of these child nodes

was further broken down into up to eight more “grandchild nodes.” For example, the “Parole”

parent node contains eight child nodes, including “Conditions”; “Time Consuming”; “Hampers

Employment”; “Hampers Social Interaction”; “Relationship with Parole Officer”; “Fear of

Breach”; “Breach”; and “Never Breached.” The “Conditions” child node is then further

disaggregated into child nodes that delineate each specific condition that was mentioned by

participants, including “Avoid Certain Persons”; “Curfew”; “Find Employment”; “Residency”;

“Substance Use”; “Technology”; “Travel Restriction.” For this thesis, my findings are drawn

largely from linkages between the “Employment,” Community Re-entry” and “Parole” nodes. I

drew heavily from the information organized within these nodes as they detail the experiences

individuals had as they attempted secure employment upon receiving parole. They also contain

39

information regarding the effects of parole on employment and the ability of participants to re-

enter the community. The information contained within these nodes was most pertinent to

answering the research questions I have put forth.

Throughout my analysis, I used NVivo’s “Annotation” tool to make note of any pieces of

information that surfaced in the interview transcripts that I could connect to themes in the

literature. I used the Annotation tool to highlight a piece of text from the transcribed interview

and make note of any patterns in the literature it reflected. I also used NVivo’s “Memo” tool to

organize my own personal reflections, observations, and ideas. Glaser (1978) describes a memo

as “the theorizing write-up of ideas about codes and their relationship as they strike the analyst

while coding…” (p. 83). By using NVivo’s Memo tool I was able to actively document my

engagement with the data and reflect on my own mindset and preconceived ideas that I held prior

to analysis. Using Annotations and Memos facilitated the process of axial coding and helped to

inform my discussion.

The final layer of organization I applied to this data was to develop case summaries of

each participant using information gleaned from the demographic survey as well as their

interview transcripts. At this stage in my analysis, each participant was assigned a pseudonym.

At the beginning of the summary, I would list their age; race/ethnicity; time served; index crime;

charges; number of convictions; previous occupation(s); parental status; marital status; religion;

highest level of education; citizenship; household income; and age at first custodial sentence.

Next, I made sparse notes from each interview, focusing primarily on the individual’s described

criminal trajectory, work history, and employment experiences upon release. Each set of notes

was delineated by interview number (i.e., “interview 1:” “interview 2:”). This process was

essential for my analysis and writing in that it allowed me, after having made thematic

40

connections across participants, to refocus these themes on the individual participant and observe

how each theme played out individually over time. It was also instrumental in ensuring my

analysis remained chronologically consistent and helped me to provide richer descriptions of

each participant and their individual circumstances as I wrote.

41

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

Many experiences reported by participants in the study were consistent with patterns

noted in the literature review. The releasees interviewed described their aspirations for

employment and understood its value in their journey toward desistance from crime, yet

indicated a lack of preparation and resources to help them find work. To this end, I organize my

findings as follows: first, I outline participants’ understandings of employment as a parole

condition. Next, I review some individuals’ purported lack of readiness to pursue employment,

despite understanding the parole board’s stance that it is necessary to do so. Following this, I

recount the experiences of those in the sample who were eager to find work, but faced barriers to

employment erected by having spent time incarcerated. Finally, I document participants’

suggestions for ways they might leave prison better prepared for community re-entry and finding

work.

Employment as a Condition of Parole

The emphasis the Correctional Service of Canada places on employment through work-

related parole conditions was actualized in the experiences reported by releasees. Mark, a 22

year-old releasee, had no employment experience beyond being a paid extra on some television

shows before becoming incarcerated. Despite the difficulties he was facing in trying to find

work, his parole conditions stipulated that he needed to be employed or in school. Regarding

this, he stated: “I don’t have a choice.” Moreover, his concern about his inability to find work

was intensified because he felt vulnerable to revocation given his parole had already been

revoked once due to a breach based on a misunderstanding. Mark explained that his parole

42

officer thought he had used marijuana, and it was not believed until after he completed a “clean”

urinalysis that he had not. Nonetheless, he suggested that his parole was revoked because, “…at

that point they didn’t think I had a job fast enough…” He suggests that what started as a breach

based on a misunderstanding turned to a revocation because of his inability to find work or

secure housing, thus leaving him feeling particularly vulnerable when awarded conditional

release anew. His experiences reveal the necessity placed on employment, as failure to find work

can be perceived as a possible violation of release conditions.

Chris, a 25 year-old ex-serial recidivist, indicated having incurred about 43 past

convictions (this was his estimate; he was uncertain about the actual number) after first being

arrested at the age of twelve. Through Klink, he was partaking in a pre-employment program

placement that required him to provide a week of voluntary labour as training before he was

hired. Working for a boat-cleaning company, his only task was to spray boats. Chris openly

discussed his dissatisfaction with the work due to the menial tasks he was responsible for and the

lack of pay. He did not believe the job would have a positive effect on his future employment

prospects, despite the fact that it would provide him with work experience. When this potential

benefit was pointed out to him by the interviewer, he responded, “Well like who cares… ‘yeah

ok call these people, yeah [Chris] sprays a real good boat.’ No one cares about that.” To Chris,

the menial nature of the labour detracted from its potential to serve as an employment experience

or reference for his résumé. When asked about his decision to carry on with the job despite its

apparent shortcomings, he replied, “my PO basically said I have no other choice.” This pressure

from their parole officers to accept any offer of employment was echoed by other participants.

Scott, for example, at age 36 was serving a life sentence. He had been imprisoned for 22

years prior to his conditional release. He admitted that a portion of the motivation behind his job

43

search was his parole officer: “It’s been, I don’t want to say the expectations of my parole

officers but at least partially that, right?” He also demonstrated some agreement with his parole

officer, as he identified employment as conducive to acclimatizing to community living:

“Initially the goal for me was adaptation with the community because I was in prison for so long.

It seems like the next obvious step for that is to look for employment.”

Adam, age 45, had previously held a successful career as a political assistant. He

indicated that his counsellor at the halfway house he was staying at “was impressed with how

easily I said I had to take any job…” Adam was unable to return to his previous career after

incurring a criminal history and was barred from specific types of employment due to the nature

of his criminality (he was convicted of sexual assault on a former romantic partner). His words

demonstrate the apparent consensus across parole officers, employment counsellors, and even

releasees, that work is required for long-term success in community reintegration. However,

there may be a discrepancy in how much value each party places on employment-derived

monetary remuneration or gratification.

Employment Readiness: Recognizing When Employment Becomes Feasible

The pressure that parole officers place on parolees to find work often resulted in

participants pursuing employment despite an acknowledged lack of readiness. For example, an

interviewee named Phil was hesitant to participate in Klink for fear that the experience would

reflect negatively on him if it went poorly: “Like this… now they can say that if I have a

deteriorating attitude they can threaten to send me back, you know?” Phil indicated not feeling

ready to begin working and when the interviewer suggested telling this to his parole officer, he

answered:

No, no, I just don’t want to ask to wait ‘til next month and then have my P.O. say, ‘oh he has a deteriorating attitude’…And then I get compared to other people to say they did

44

more time and they were out for as long as me and they’re doing good, it feels like a race. I’m not out to impress anybody.

This response indicates that Phil did not view taking more time to feel ready before looking for

work as an option due to the expectations of his parole officer. Phil also states: “There’s

sometimes that I feel like I’m being pressured, like I’m trapped in a corner. I don’t want to feel

like that.” At thirty years old, Phil had never held a job before his incarceration and at the time of

his interview, he had recently been released after serving eight years of an eleven year sentence

for armed robberies. He had interest in finding employment, but thought he would be able to take

his time and access some supports before doing so. Instead, he felt that his parole officer was

pushing him to proceed with haste:

Right, I got out, can I take things slowly, that’s what I thought could happen. Start off at a YMCA, talk to someone, a job counsellor, a psychologist, something like that, just to ease into it, right? I don’t feel like I’ve gotten that, they’ve all been like here, do this, go there and do that and that’s what’s going to happen. It feels like it’s a race… go to A, B and C and come back and show me what you got.

Phil explained that he understood the importance of finding employment and becoming self-

sufficient, but indicated that it would take some time for him to do so: “…I know it’s time for me

to grow and that, but it’s going to take time. It’s not going to be two weeks or three weeks to get

rid of everything I’ve learned over the past ten years.” Here, it seems that Phil’s goals are aligned

with those of his parole officer. His statement, “it’s time for me to grow and that,” can be

interpreted as an acknowledgement that he is ready to desist from crime and pursue a “normal,

grown-up” life, which would ostensibly include employment. However, he views his situation

pragmatically. He recognizes that desistance and acclimatizing to a generative, crime-free

lifestyle is a process, and is not something that will happen for him immediately. Here, there

emerges an observable discrepancy between expectations put forth by Phil’s parole officer and

his own perceptions of what he is capable of doing.

45

The reasons participants cited for feeling unprepared for employment were manifold. In

some cases they were being released into a community unfamiliar to them, and were intimidated

by trying to become acclimatized to a new space while also attempting to find work. Others,

even when being released into a community they were familiar with, struggled with the transition

from being incarcerated to community living. Simply re-learning to live outside of prison—to

provide for oneself; make individual decisions, both large and small; and interact with others,

whose individual contexts are unknown (not a reality during imprisonment)—can be a struggle

for some, and placing a required search for employment atop this experience might be

unrealistic.

Re-entering an Unfamiliar Community

The process of re-learning to navigate the outside community is made more daunting if

the releasee is entering an unfamiliar place. Sam’s experience demonstrates these jarring effects.

At the age of 38, Sam had been a frequent recidivist and when interviewed, he reported having

just finished serving his first federal sentence of five years for armed robbery and possession of a

firearm. He was first sentenced at age eleven, and he continued to incur provincial sentences

until his experience doing federal time: “I’ve been in more than I’ve been out, for sure.” Upon

release, he felt vulnerable and unprepared: “For one, I was scared to death and I wasn’t going

back to the area where I was familiar. I did so many years without smoking and the first thing I

did was buy a pack.”

Moreover, because prison facilities and community corrections centres are often

geographically distant from a prisoner’s home (Comfort, 2008; Western & Wileman, 2009), their

re-entry become complicated through reduced access to their social support network. Sam was

being released into an area he described as “unfamiliar,” meaning that in addition to the variety

46

of factors a person needs to address upon release, Sam faced doing so in an unknown space. He

would have to learn how to navigate an unfamiliar area and perhaps learn how to use local public

transit. Being in an unfamiliar space could complicate his job and housing searches in that he

might have less understanding of where to look. As well, being released and paroled in a place

that is not “home” to him means that he would likely have to face these challenges with reduced

support from pre-existing social connections such as family, friends, and former employers,

which an individual being released into their hometown might be better able to avail. Sam’s

decision to buy a pack of cigarettes after years of not smoking suggests his use of a familiar

crutch in the face of discomfort and uncertainty. He describes himself as having been “scared to

death.” This demonstrates the ease with which individuals may fall into old destructive habits

upon release in light of the stresses brought on by community reintegration—old habits which

may manifest as criminal activity or support potential recidivism.

Chris was being released in a city geographically distant from his hometown, to which he

planned to return after completing his parole and leaving the halfway house. He explained that

finding work in that city felt somewhat futile to him because he intended to leave anyway: “I’ll

still work in stores until next season or whatever, but I won’t even be in [city name] next season,

know what I mean? I’m not from here.” While he intended to find a retail job to hold him over

until he moved home, he suggested that there was no point in trying to find something better

because he intended to leave the city anyway. This can hamper employment reintegration by

imbuing the job search with a sense of pointlessness, making it difficult for individuals to

motivate themselves to find work.

47

Accessing Social Support Services

Sometimes releasees must seek social assistance in order to support themselves while

they look for work. Sam describes obstacles he faced in trying to attain social assistance,

indicating that what he would need could have been better explained to him in advance:

[If there are] things that we don’t know we’re going to be up against, and you know it’s probably something I’m going to need to face… then tell me before hand. You say I need to go to welfare but don’t tell me I need three of these things. I go there thinking that I don’t have any money today and hopefully I’ll be able to get some money from them for tomorrow. But you come out and you realize there’s five different things you had to bring and you didn’t know and two weeks later you’re finally getting the cheque. From that day to the cheque day, it’s madness. They should set it up ahead of time but they don’t.

This passage demonstrates the financial difficulties ex-prisoners face and the competing needs

that accompany release. To receive financial assistance, a variety of documents are required;

however, attaining these documents might come at a financial cost. For example, they might face

transportation costs when trying to arrive at a Service Canada branch, and in Ontario, a

provincial photo identification card costs $35.00 (Service Ontario, 2017). When Sam attempted

to apply for social assistance he was asked for identification, and the only documentation he

possessed was his Finger Print System (FPS) card—a symbol of his criminal history. In order to

apply for social assistance, he would have to disclose his criminal history immediately: “Who the

f**k wants to come out of prison and tell the whole world that’s where you were?” Sam felt that

he had not received sufficient support before attempting to secure social assistance. This

contributes to a lack of readiness for employment, as well, because a scarcity of financial

resources complicates the job search.

Transitioning into Life Outside of Prison

Another factor contributing to some participants’ hesitance to search for work

immediately following release was a feeling of being overwhelmed by the outside world. At age

48

53, the multiple sentences Ian had incurred over his lifetime accumulated to about seventeen

years of incarceration. He was offered a job two weeks after being released on parole but

declined it, indicating that he felt unable to accept the offer of employment because he had pain

in his knees, though he realized this decision would disappoint his parole officer. He readily

acknowledged the importance of getting back to work for his continued desistance from crime:

“…I understand that in my past, it [has been] important to get back to work almost as soon as

possible.” The interviewer pointed out that beginning a new job after having been incarcerated

must be very stressful, and Ian said: “…you know what, the knee is an issue but what we’re

talking about is also a concern because I was a little bit overwhelmed.”

Ian’s experience paralleled Phil’s in that when he joined the employment program after

release, he was under the impression he could ease into the process of finding work, first taking

time to better his resume construction and interview skills. However, he was almost immediately

set up with a job interview and an offer of employment. He acknowledges that he was fortunate

to find an opportunity so quickly, but stated, “I wasn’t ready.” This conversation demonstrates

his understanding that a lack of readiness is not a legitimate reason to deny an employment

opportunity, revealing the level of significance that is placed on finding work for parole

maintenance. His physical issues probably dissuaded him from accepting the job, but his

statements also suggest that he was using his knee injury to conceal the fact that he felt

unprepared to accept the job offer so soon after his release. This suggests that while a physical

ailment constitutes a legitimate reason for unemployment, emotional or mental ailments do not.

Scott describes the opportunities he had to participate in work release programming as

being instrumental in facilitating his reintegration back into the community, noting that “…I

think the experiences of actually getting out of prison even before day parole were really

49

beneficial. One of the reasons I haven’t felt weird now is because of those chances.” Work

release programs allow prisoners to be temporarily released to work in the community for a

period of time. They might be escorted or unescorted absences, or they might take place at a

halfway house or with CORCAN2 so that the person completing the work release is still under

some measure of supervision. Scott indicated that these experiences helped him to become

reacquainted with the outside community. Here, he recalls an incident where he was almost

struck by a vehicle while on work release because he forgot to look both ways before crossing

the street:

I actually almost got run over on one of these work releases. We had to cross the street to work on a skating rink, and it honestly didn’t occur to me that it was a road. It was just there and the guy in charge had to scream for me and grab me because I had forgotten to look both ways. But can you imagine someone getting released in [city name]? And it’s funny the things you forget and get out of the habit of doing, but it’s things like that that really helped to recondition me into society.

Scott had been incarcerated for so long, he forgot to look both ways before crossing a street. This

is a stark example of how time spent in prison can erode an individual’s ability to function in the

outside world, demonstrating that time is needed to readjust. His participation in work release

programs helped Scott to not “feel weird” when he was released in the community, supporting

the importance of these programs for successful community re-entry.

Natalie, 47, was incarcerated for sixteen years. She confirms that for her, being thrust into

a job search immediately upon release would not have resulted in successful employment.

Natalie took some time to acclimatize to the community after being released before trying to find

employment. She entered the employment program eight months after her release and received

an offer of employment soon after. At the time of her interview she was holding a job and

2 CORCAN is an agency that operates within the Correctional Service of Canada to offer on-the-job vocational training for ex-prisoners and for individuals who are still incarcerated (CSC, 2016c).

50

described herself as content. When asked about the transition from prison to living in a halfway

house, she replied, “It was very overwhelming. When I first came out all I did was cry. And a

few times I just wanted to go back because it’s familiar, right? I find out here it’s very fast for

me.” When asked if she thought she would have been successful if she had participated in the

employment program immediately upon release, she replied:

I think for myself, personally, I think I needed time to adjust. I think if I had been put in right away I don’t think I would have done as well. I think, like I said I was dealing with a lot of overwhelming feelings and I needed to go through an adjustment period. Especially someone like me who’s been in a long time right?

When asked if she would have been ready four months after her release, she responded

negatively, citing the length of her sentence and the various facets of community reintegration

one must attend to:

You’re dealing with all kinds of stuff. You’re dealing with adjusting to the halfway house, you’re dealing with adjusting to the community. Going places by yourself, being more independent… [in prison] you’re told what to do and you’re on a routine, right? So there’s a lot of factors there. It’s not that simple.

She indicated that for her, waiting before attempting to find employment was essential: “…it

would have been too much. I think this was perfect timing for me. Because I’m ready now,

right?” Both Natalie and Ian had spent a significant amount of time in prison and away from the

workforce, and both had felt unprepared to find work immediately upon re-entering the

community.3 Eventually, Natalie did feel ready to pursue employment. She was then placed in a

3 An interesting observation can be made when comparing Natalie’s experience with Ian’s. Natalie and Ian spent a similar amount of time incarcerated, and neither felt ready to pursue employment immediately after release. However, Ian felt more comfortable attributing his aversion to accepting the job to his knee injury, and was only open about feeling overwhelmed and unprepared when probed by the interviewer. However, Natalie was able to express this, while Ian attributed his hesitance to begin working using a physical injury. Admitting to feeling overwhelmed and unprepared to pursue employment conveys a certain level of vulnerability. It is possible that while Natalie felt comfortable embodying this level of vulnerability, Ian was restricted from doing so by hegemonic ideals of masculinity and accompanying notions of “toughness.” Although more research would be required for further discussion, this

51

position through Klink, and was successful in maintaining the position throughout the duration of

this study. Her experience suggests that forcing individuals to accept a position before they feel

prepared to do so may set them up to fail, and demonstrates some time for adjustment may be

needed before one is to successfully accept a position.

Social Interaction after Prison

Upon institutional release, parolees must learn anew to navigate society and the social

interactions that come with societal living. Some participants perceived their social skills as

inadequate and as impeding their readiness for employment. Beyond the job itself, interactions

with others on the job were a source of stress and vulnerability. To this end, several participants

noted that while they were happy to be back in the community, re-learning how to interact with

others was a challenge. Greg, age 36, stated, “You’re not used to being around normal people, or

just people in general. You know what I mean? It was very hard on the system, it’s very

stressful.” Seemingly mundane tasks can become daunting for releasees. Greg, for example,

explained that, “in the first days I got out, I was really nervous to take the subway.” Similarly,

Seb, age 25 and having just finished serving eight and a half years for nine armed robberies,

identified “being around so many people” as the most difficult part of reintegration, stating,

“You have to have people skills, and I’m shy around people… I don’t know how to relate, I

guess. I don’t know what everyone does nowadays. I don’t know how to explain it. I’ve been

around criminals for six years and I’m around females and stuff now so I’m just shy.” Phil also

indicated feeling overwhelmed by being around so many people. He described the first time he

discrepancy in experiences might demonstrate the effect gender can have former prisoners’ experiences of parole.

52

visited the food court in the mall in his city: “I couldn’t focus on eating. I just couldn’t stop

looking at all the faces.”

Participants’ demonstrated that their feelings of unease around others can have negative

effects on their job search. Finding work requires an individual to expose their vulnerabilities. As

job seekers they must reach out to strangers and be open to judgement. Once a job is attained, the

new employee may also have to become accustomed to the social climate of their new work

place and form relationships with their co-workers, superiors and clients. The stress tied to

learning the ins and out of any new job can be daunting, and also requires new employees to

draw on their co-workers’ and superiors’ experiences and advice—a potentially overwhelming

task for someone recently released from institutional custody. Phil, for example, described the

prevalence of such vulnerabilities in how he avoided reaching out to others: “So many different

people. I don’t know anybody so I don't want to ask any questions to anybody.”

Participants’ comments regarding the job interview process are also pertinent to this

discussion of compromised social skills. Social anxieties compound the experiences of releasees

who are nervous because of their time away from the workforce, which leaves them “out of

practice” with applying and interviewing for jobs. The topic frequently arose when the

interviewer asked which skills participants felt they needed to work on through programming.

For example, Jake, age 28, said that, “For me it’s mostly the interview part. I’m always either too

uptight in an interview or just don’t know what to answer, really.” Roy, 27, who had been

unemployed for a long period of time before his arrest, felt nervous about attending a job

interview because it had been a long time since he had done so: “…I haven’t dressed up like that

for a while, and like actually presented myself to someone that’s gonna be looking at me… I’ve

never been in those kinds of positions in a long time.” Their words evince that time spent within

53

an enclosed social system separate from the outside world may leave individuals unaccustomed

to interacting with strangers. The time Roy spent away from the workforce also left him

uncertain of how he should try to come across to others. The job search process magnifies the

discomfort that results as individuals work to reacquaint themselves with social interaction,

which necessitates a heightened level of vulnerability and consciousness of self-presentation.

Social anxieties compound the experiences of releasees who are nervous because of their

time away from the workforce, leaving them “out of practice” regarding searching, applying and

interviewing for jobs. The job application process is even more intimidating for people who have

never held a legal job before. When asked about the most difficult aspect of finding a job, Phil,

who had never held (legitimate) employment, responded, “Just the fact that I had never done an

interview. How to talk, present myself, the right words to say… [it is] very intimidating. My

stomach turns.” Klink provided opportunities for practice interviews, and Phil expressed hope

that these practice interviews would help him “to get over the nervousness and anxiety” that

came with interviewing for jobs.

Barriers to Employment: Beyond Readiness

Beyond an indicated lack of readiness to pursue employment, participants identified

various other barriers that negatively impacted their ability to find work. Participants spoke of

the importance of having a social network for finding employment and the negative impacts

incarceration has on a person’s ability to connect with others and maintain existing relationships.

They also spoke of the stigma that follows the criminal record and the resulting dilemma of

whether or not to reveal their criminal record to potential employers. Thus, even once individuals

do feel prepared to re-enter the workforce and pursue work, there remain barriers that can

prevent them from doing so.

54

Social Connections

A robust social network was identified by participants as key for finding employment.

Mark, a 22 year-old participant who had just received statutory release from a three year

sentence, pointed out that this is the case regardless of whether someone has a criminal record:

“…there’s work out here, but you got to know someone ‘cause I have friends who haven’t been

in the system once and they find it hard to get employment.” Scott’s crime and the twenty-two

year sentence that accompanied it isolated him from his family. Having been incarcerated at the

age of fifteen, he had very little opportunity to build a social network as an adult. He described

the contrast between his situation and that of other lifers:

I have a couple of friends who are lifers and who have support from family and the community. I know one guy who has a couple of years to go but when he gets out he’ll live at the halfway house and his sister has offered to let him use her garage. In the garage he’s going to set up a bicycle repair shop which is a skill that he has that he thinks it’s in demand enough, and he’s going to run it out of her garage. So, he already has their support in terms of if they need tools he’ll get it, if he’s not doing well financially then he has people that will help him out. So I see him having a number of advantages that I don’t. I have other people that I know who are getting out and going back to work in their family’s company, or their friends company or their parents know someone who can get them a connection.

The notoriety of Scott’s case motivated him to settle in Ontario rather than in the province where

his crime took place, despite the fact that his family resided there: “In [province] my offence is

much more well known than here. Being out here gives me that distance, but it also means that

that measure of my support network is gone.” Chris, a 25 year-old participant completing his

parole in a city away from home, indicated that being on parole inhibited his ability to form a

social network upon release: “I’m not even allowed to leave the city and I don’t even know

anyone here…I can’t even have friends because everyone needs to get CPICed4 to hang out, you

4 “CPIC” refers to the Canadian Police Information Centre. A parolee’s associates must undergo a background check through CPIC in order to ensure they have no criminal involvement.

55

know?” Parolees are not to spend time with other persons with a criminal history, yet it is largely

not feasible that the people they meet have a background check completed through the Canadian

Police Information Centre. This reality has the adverse effect of generating fear of parole

breaches if one unintentionally ends up befriending another former prisoner. The latent effect of

such restrictions is the resulting difficulty it creates when trying to grow one’s social network

while on parole. This is detrimental for parolees’ job-search efforts, because social connections

can lead to job opportunities, and demonstrating positive social contact with others can bolster an

individual’s legitimacy as well as increase their chances of attaining a position. For example,

Scott explains in a later interview that he was able to find a job at a computer store because his

volunteer work at a church provided a positive reference for his moral character: “I walked into

the store with a resume and said I was looking for a job, and he said, ‘you volunteer at the

church—what the heck, I’ll take a chance on you.’” This exemplifies the positive effect social

contact with other people and organizations—especially those that connote morality, such as a

church—can have on one’s job searching efforts and on others’ perceptions of a person’s

character.

As mentioned above, James, who had previously been self-employed as an entrepreneur,

found himself unable to return to the job he held before his incarceration due to the corrosive

effects being imprisoned had had on his social network. His business contacts shunned him as a

result of the negative associations that came with his conviction: “…the kind of friends I was

having before, some friends have gone away from me because they don’t want to be associated

with a criminal. Some people just see the offence and they don’t want to know what happened

and don’t want to know anything about you.” He expressed understanding that in some cases his

former contacts did not want to ignore him, but severed ties with him due to the damaging effects

56

association with an ex-prisoner could have on their reputation: “[It is] not that they didn’t believe

me, but they couldn’t be involved with someone who was involved in drug transactions.” To this

end, James noted that he felt compelled to take any job he could get in order to financially

support his family: “finance-wise it’s really tough because getting a job with a criminal record is

really hard here… I’m forced to do any type of job. My family has to survive, so I have to do any

job I can find and move on with my life.” This demonstrates how James’ standards for the type

of work he would take were lowered by the barriers to employment imposed by his criminal

record. Recognizing a need to financially provide for his family while also taking into account

his limited job options, James conceded that he would accept any type of work despite being

highly qualified in a specific area.

Perceived Stigma and the Criminal Record

Participants’ discomfort with social interaction and the job interview process was also, in

many cases, informed by their knowledge of their own stigmatized status. On meeting new

people, Scott said, “…it’s always how much should I tell them, what should I say, how much or

how little.” Adam was made acutely aware of his stigmatized status when an offer of

employment was rescinded following his potential employer’s discovery of his criminal record

after a Google search of his name. Following this occurrence, Adam considered changing his

name to avoid having someone uncover his criminal record using the internet, but remained

hesitant, questioning the alternative and potentially more damaging messages it may convey:

“…does it make me look like I’m trying to hide or escape from something?” The uncertainty of

who may discover his criminal history was stressful for Adam: “…I suffer from anxiety and in

the back of my mind I’m thinking ‘oh my god, what if they find out.’ When I send out an email

or a resume it’s always on my mind… if I went into a job and didn’t tell them then it would be

57

on my mind every day. I would have been fearful every day.” This circumstance brings to mind

Goffman’s (1963) pertinent, if convoluted passage: “The individual who is known about by

others may or may not know that he is known about by them; they in turn may or may not know

that he knows or doesn’t know of their knowing about him” (p. 85).

This discomfort—unease as a result of not knowing who is aware of one’s criminal

history, or how much they know—may motivate former prisoners to pre-emptively disclose their

criminal record in an attempt to control how they are depicted and bypass the uncertainty of who

knows about it. Regarding this, Adam said, “…I would hate to be living with the fact that I had a

record and I didn’t tell you and someone finds out. Like I said, I have a lot of anxiety and I know

that would create more of it, so if there’s a way to relieve some of it then I am inclined to do

that.” In a later interview after Adam had been job searching for three months, he amended his

stance regarding disclosure, indicating whether or not he disclosed depended on the situation:

Some places I did. If they didn’t ask I didn’t tell. Other places they asked and I said yes. So some places will also ask if you’ve received a pardon and I was always honest about that. And then other places where they didn’t ask and I got to a point where they would offer me a job I would proactively disclose.

Adam’s technique is consistent with Harding’s aforementioned (2003) identification of three

strategies former prisoners use to address their criminal record: non-disclosure, full disclosure, or

conditional disclosure. Jake discloses even in recruitment processes where disclosure is not

necessary, “…because a lot of places do background checks, so I tell them up front.” Engaging

in “preventative telling” (Winnick & Bodkin, 2008) eliminates the anxiety that results from

being uncertain about who knows about whose stigmatized status, despite the risk of rejection.

Participants also saw advantage in disclosing on their own terms because it enabled them

to contextualize their criminal history rather than being affixed with the hazy definition of

“former prisoner,” which creates potential for others to conceptualize their criminal history as

58

worse than it was. Jake, who served two thirds of 26 months for sexual assault, implied that his

crimes occurred as a result of drug use: “I let them know before I tell them what the charge

was…what the circumstances were leading up to that because all I tell them now just bear in

mind that I was on drugs when this happened and I wasn’t in the right frame of mind. That kind

of eases things a little bit.” Natalie’s conviction stemmed from her relationship with her abusive

former partner. She contextualized her conviction by describing her personal circumstances at

the time:

…they just see paper and that’s not who we are, that doesn’t define us… It’s a one time thing with me and it just happened, it was bad choices on my part. I chose to stay there and I had nowhere else to go. I was young, I was uneducated, I had kids, and I financially wasn’t stable. There’s a lot of circumstances that people don’t understand.

Jay, age 37, served five years of a seven year sentence for robbery, forcible confinement and

possession of a firearm. During his second interview, he had a job placement in a coffee

company. Regarding disclosure at work, he stated, “Yeah, some people ask and I water it down

and some people are interested to know what the story is and stuff so I’ll tell them some of it and

how I made a mistake and stuff like that.” Again, this demonstrates how preventative telling may

offer the former prisoner a chance to control how much of their story is told, perhaps mitigating

the negative effects of the vague label that comes with a criminal record.

Beyond navigating whether or not to disclose, Jake indicated the act itself of recounting

what happened to be painful. He pointed out that his co-workers knew that he was incarcerated,

but not what his offence was: “There’s still something there that gets me every time I have to tell

someone about it.” He said that it gets easier to disclose over time, “…but at the same time it still

hits me that I can’t believe I did that.”

Upon disclosure, participants met mixed responses. Employers were occasionally

unconcerned by participants’ criminal histories. By Jake’s third interview, six months after his

59

first, he was well into a college Network Administration program and had an employment

prospect tending to satellite communication on an oil rig. He had pre-emptively disclosed his

criminal record to the company, and stated, “…they said that they don’t give a rat’s ass. They

just want someone to help who knows what they’re doing.” However, he noted that employers’

responses were generally not so positive:

I have applied to a lot, and they’ve said that while I’m more than qualified for the job they can’t take me because I have a record… Over 300 resumes I must have gotten out around [city name] and I’ve only heard back from two and I never got hired…most of the places are because of a criminal record, they just don’t want to hire anyone with any kind of record.”

When asked to identify the most difficult aspect of community reintegration, James, a former

entrepreneur stated, “Oh yeah, it’s the criminal record. It’s killing you everywhere you go. You

can’t get a decent job. And meeting your friends is a problem because you don’t really know if

they’re judging you about it.” James, age 47, spent three years in an Ecuador prison before being

transferred to Canada. He was convicted of drug smuggling from Ecuador to Nigeria after

agreeing to transport a box for a potential business contact, and continued to assert his innocence

throughout his interviews. James was employed in exports, a very contact-based business, but

found when he was released that his former connections did not want to associate with him due

to the stigma of his criminal record. This left him faced with the challenge of starting from

scratch or entering a new field.

Conclusion

My aim in presenting these findings is to illustrate the experiences of releasees as they

strive to re-situate themselves within the community and adjust to life outside of prison. As well,

reviewing their experiences helps to demonstrate the diverse challenges they face as they attempt

to find work. Taking these experiences into account, it becomes starkly evident that individuals

60

may not feel ready to pursue employment for an array of reasons. My discussion section attempts

to discern why some individuals pursue employment despite identifying themselves as not being

ready to do so.

61

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

The data collected to support this study was originally intended to help illuminate

barriers parolees faced as they attempted to find work after being released from prison.

Upon analyzing the resulting interview transcripts, the most unique barrier I observed was

that participants did not feel ready for employment. Thus, the direction of my analysis

focused on attempting to discern whether releasees were ready for work upon release and

trying to understand factors that contributed to their readiness, or lack thereof.

Throughout the process of my analysis, I came to the conclusion that many participants

were admittedly not prepared for employment; however, their conditions of parole

provided them with no other option than to try to find work anyways. To proceed, in my

concluding chapter, I use Goffman’s (1963) theory of stigma to try to understand why

parolees are expected to find work despite admittedly not being ready to do so—

especially in the face of potentially negative outcomes due to this lack of readiness. In

doing this, I hope to move academic understanding forward by examining the effects

stigma has on an individual’s ability to enter the workforce at their own pace.

Employment for ex-prisoners has been extensively discussed in the context of

“external” barriers such as lack of housing or finances, few employment experiences or

educational attainments, and employers’ negative attitudes towards those with a history of

incarceration. Less discussed, however, has been the effect that an “internal” barrier—like

an individual’s emotional preparedness to seek and accept work—has on a person’s

62

outcomes. I begin this chapter by discussing participants’ demonstrated lack of readiness

to find work upon release, and the factors that contributed to making this the case. Next, I

discuss how participants were pressured to find work by their parole officers, despite

indicating that they were not ready to do so. I then consider readiness as being considered

an “illegitimate” reason to delay one’s job search, and employ Goffman’s (1963) theory

of stigma to attempt to explain this idea. I move on to recount participant outcomes and

discuss potentially negative effects of forcing parolees to find and accept employment

before they are ready. Finally, I suggest tactics to potentially increase individuals’ level of

readiness to find work upon release.

Lack of Readiness

When analyzing these interview transcripts for emergent themes regarding

barriers to finding employment following prison, “readiness” was not a pattern I expected

to see. However, it was a topic that emerged repeatedly, both in terms of a lack of

practical preparedness to find work (e.g., lack of work experience, lack of job search

techniques) and an individual, emotional unpreparedness to enter the workforce.

Immediately upon release, individuals understood the expectation to find employment

that was placed on them by the parole board and their individual parole officers. Though

many participants expressed in no uncertain terms feeling unprepared in this regard, they

conceded that it was necessary to look for work in order to fulfill their conditions of

release.

Multiple factors fuelled these feelings. In terms of internal factors, some

participants were being released and paroled in a community away from their home, and

63

the stress of learning to navigate an unfamiliar community compounded with the stress of

trying to find work. For others, and especially for those who had been incarcerated for a

long time and described themselves as “institutionalized,” taking time to grow re-

accustomed to the “outside world” after having been inside for so long was necessary

before finding work. Participants described the stress incited by having to take part in

social interactions in general; more specific and acute, however, was the stress that

stemmed from social interactions related to attaining employment. Participants were

daunted by the job interview process and uncertain how to present themselves properly,

especially as many of the participants in this study had limited formal employment

experiences—consistent with previous findings in the literature (Petersilia, 2005;

Varghese, Hardin, & Bauer, 2009 Varghese, Hardin, Bauer, & Morgan, 2010).

Even if internal feelings of readiness were attained, external barriers remained as

individuals sought to find work. Participants’ social connections were damaged by having

been incarcerated, replicating findings from Western, Kling and Weiman (2001), which

negatively impacted their attempts to find employment. As well, participants in this study

struggled greatly with the stigma brought on by having a criminal record. Many

participants had opportunities rescinded upon the revelation of their criminal histories and

articulated uncertainty regarding whether to disclose their criminal records employers and

co-workers, or to try to keep them concealed. The effects stigma has on former prisoners’

job-seeking efforts have been well-demonstrated in the scholarly literature, and the results

of this study replicate previous findings from other scholars (e.g., Pager, 2007; Chui &

Cheng, 2013) in that participants found their employment prospects to be diminished by

the repellent nature of having a criminal history.

64

The demonstrated barriers to employment that participants in this study faced

support the argument that individuals need to be given more time after prison to adjust to

the outside world and develop employable skills before they are to start working. In

prison, there are limited opportunities to develop oneself as hireable through training,

work experience, volunteer work and the development of social connections. If these

areas were not already developed before a person is incarcerated, they must be addressed

and constructed upon release, and this takes time. Even, and perhaps especially, if a

person is assessed as having “employment” as one of their dynamic risk factors, they may

not be ready to enter a job immediately upon their release. Individuals who have a

dynamic risk factor of employment are more likely to be those who obtained their income

through illegal means before they were incarcerated. If they were imprisoned for an

extremely long period of time, such as in the case of Scott, employment is often applied

as a parole condition because it promotes “normal” functioning in society.

Employment as a dynamic risk factor is also often assigned to people such as

Natalie, whose crime stemmed from being in an abusive relationship with her romantic

partner. She is considered to be at risk of staying in an abusive relationship in the future if

she remains financially dependent on her abuser. Thus, individuals who are employable—

who have work experience, training, perhaps even a career—are not generally assigned

employment as a condition of parole, because it is not something they need to improve

upon. Those who are assigned this condition are generally difficult to employ, and may be

deeply uncertain and anxious in the face of finding work. Thus, recalling my first research

question—are parolees ready to find work upon release? Often, they are not. However,

they are still pushed to attain employment by their parole conditions. I proceed by

65

considering the potentially negative effects of being pushed into accepting employment

before one is actually ready to do so.

Effects of Seeking Employment Too Soon

Participants’ words demonstrate that upon release, the transition from being

incarcerated to being in a position of employment can be difficult. Phil felt rushed into

finding work upon release; he understood that employment was important for his

desistance, but felt that he was being pushed to seek work before he was ready. Being in

the community and outside of prison can be shocking, especially for someone like

Natalie, who was incarcerated for seventeen years. There is tension between trying to

uphold conditions of parole, which may require haste, and trying to proceed in ways that

assure the individual feels comfortable and is set up for success, which may require some

extra time. Even once a person does feel ready to pursue work, being incarcerated and

therefore removed from the workforce for a period of time can complicate re-entry, such

as in the cases of Jake and Roy.

Seeking and attaining employment becomes a graver process as it is translated

into a parole condition and placed upon individuals in that their freedom is at risk if they

fail to uphold that condition. Thus, while many participants described feelings of

apprehension and uncertainty about finding employment, they forged ahead in doing so

nonetheless. The effects of feeling desperate to find work brought on results consistent

with findings from the literature. Understandings of the severity of these parole

conditions informed individuals regarding the type of work they accepted; rather than

waiting for the right job, which would provide a liveable wage, be suitable to the

66

individual based on past training and experiences, and preferably be in some way

meaningful to the individual, parolees were expected to accept virtually any offer of

employment, congruent with Shivy and colleagues’ (2007) findings. Recall Adam’s

statement: “…I had to take any job…” This approach to finding work may result in

parolees ending up in jobs that are exploitative or alienating to them, thus nullifying the

potential benefits employment might have for desistance—as indicated by Maruna

(2001), if the work is found to be punishing rather than rewarding, it is less likely to have

positive effects for the parolee and may even catalyze recidivism. This finding also

supports indications in the literature that ex-prisoners’ disadvantaged position in the

labour market and desperation to find employment may make them more likely to find

work that is precarious and/or exploitative (Harding, 2003; Atkinson & Rostad, 2003).

I do not intend to argue against the importance employment holds for ex-

prisoners’ community reintegration; its benefits are clear. Instead, I aim to highlight that

prison-to-employment transitions will look different for each individual. Despite the

demonstrated importance employment has for desistance and community reintegration, I

argue that using parole conditions to pressure individuals into finding work before they

are truly ready to do so may not actually provide a positive influence. To demonstrate

this, recall the experiences of Phil, Sam, and Roy. Phil articulated wanting to take more

time to prepare himself before attempting to find work, but indicated that he was not able

to do so for fear that his parole officer would assess him as having a “deteriorating

attitude.” Sam was released from prison into an area geographically distant from his home

and describes himself as being “scared to death,” and immediately bought a pack of

cigarettes in an attempt to quell the anxiousness he was feeling despite having quit for

67

many years. Roy had noted that his resume was quite blank and hoped Klink could help

by giving him some experience and teaching him how to seek work; he indicated feeling

anxious about attempting to find a job because he had not taken part in many job

interviews and felt uncertain about how to present himself. All three of these individuals

were working with parole conditions that stipulated they find employment or demonstrate

that they were attempting to do so, and all three indicated feeling unprepared to take on

this task due to a combination of factors.

Every effort was made to make note of individuals’ outcomes at the end of this

study, though for the same reasons that complicated our ability to conduct follow-up

interviews this was not always possible. Phil and Roy had both breached their parole and

were back in prison at the end of this study. Final notes on Sam indicate that no one had

been able to reach him. Recalling the standard condition of parole that requires parolees

to meet regularly with their parole officers, Sam’s absence would count as a breach and

his parole would likely be revoked. All three of these participants understood that

employment was important in supporting their desistance, indicated that they did not feel

quite ready to take on a position, but also indicated that their parole condition influenced

them to move forward with trying to find work despite this—and all three reoffended. In

cases such as these, individuals are dealing with the myriad of emotions, anxieties, and

barriers that were hampering their successfully reintegration into the community. The

results of this study indicate that in some cases, it is not effective to stipulate that they

attain employment during this time.

In contrast, Natalie had expressed that she was not prepared to take on a position

of employment immediately upon release, and was able to take eight months to readjust

68

to the community before she found work. This time afforded her the opportunity to work

through the emotions that come with being outside of prison and back in the community,

especially after a long sentence (hers was sixteen years). She was able to readjust to a

world where her day was her own to schedule, rather than being institutionally controlled.

She was able to relearn how to conduct herself in the free community through doing

things like going places alone and relearning how to use public transit. After eight months

had passed and she once more was comfortable being in the community, she felt ready to

pursue work and did so successfully. At the end of this study, Natalie held a steady job

and described herself as content.

Like all qualitative work, these outcomes cannot be interpreted as generalizable.

However, the results do help to demonstrate how different trajectories from prison into

the community, and then into the workplace, might play out. Further, they show that

while employment is certainly important for desistance and successful community

reintegration, the timing of employment may also be a factor in individuals’ success.

While employment may help support the transition from a life of incarceration to

a lifestyle focused around desistance, the results of this study suggest that this is only true

once a person is ready to find work. If a job opportunity is pursued before someone feels

mentally ready to do so, it is possible that they may return to a previously discarded

familiar crutch, as was demonstrated by Sam. Sam’s case displays the ease with which

individuals may fall into old destructive habits upon release in light of the stresses

brought on by community reintegration—old habits which may manifest as criminal

activity or may support potential recidivism. Thus far, I have addressed my first two

research questions: (i) are people ready for employment immediately post incarceration?

69

and (ii) which factors help individuals feel ready to seek work? Next, I address my final

research question: if pressuring someone to begin work before they feel ready to do so

has such potential for negative outcomes, why does it continue to happen? Using

Goffman’s (1963) theory of stigma, I argue that the stereotypes that follow a history of

incarceration are such that a person cannot use “lack of readiness” as a reason to delay

finding work.

Stigma, Stereotypes, and Readiness

The way stereotypes people hold about former prisoners crystalize into a

stigmatized status had palpable effects on participants’ efforts to find work. They were

afforded very few chances for employment, and often they were relegated to finding work

by undergoing the stressful process of concealing their criminal record from potential

employers. This tactic was not ideal as it left participants dealing with anxiousness

produced from lying by omission, and in cases where their criminal history was revealed

after an offer of employment was made, the offer tended to be quickly rescinded. This

provides a clear demonstration of participants’ status as having been formerly

incarcerated evolving into what Goffman (1963) terms a “master status” in that their

criminal history eclipsed any positive attributes they may have possessed. Even if an

individual’s qualifications, experiences, skillset and personality were found suitable for

the job to the extent that they were offered employment, the revelation of their criminal

history would overshadow these positive qualities, effectively rendering them invalid.

Recalling Goffman’s (1963) stigma of character traits, having a history of

incarceration suggests that a person’s character is tainted. While it is not immediately

70

evident, once known, it discredits the stigmatized individual and infers negative

stereotypes of them. Having been convicted of a crime and having subsequently served

time in prison results in a person being viewed as being of “weak will, domineering or

unnatural passions, treacherous and rigid beliefs, and dishonesty…” (Goffman, 1963, p.

4). Some stereotypes of “criminals,” which ex-prisoners are assumed to be, include being

untrustworthy, morally corrupt, and dangerous. A quick search of the word “criminal” on

“Thesaurus.com” yields synonyms for criminal as a noun including villain, delinquent,

wrongdoer, and miscreant; synonyms for criminal as an adjective include deplorable,

shameful, reprehensible, disgraceful, inexcusable, unforgivable, unconscionable,

unpardonable, monstrous, and wicked. These synonyms can be interpreted as

demonstrating the widespread condemnation of individuals who have been found to have

involvement in criminal acts. Because stigma is attached to individuals with a criminal

history as a group, individuals who are a part of this group are considered to possess the

negative traits associated with it.

I argue that the stereotypes attached to a history of incarceration influence others

to be suspicious that someone who indicates being unready for work is being dishonest.

Instead, if they express an unpreparedness to find work it is suspected that they are lazy,

scheming, and uninterested in participating in the formal labour market. Perhaps they

prefer to earn a living dishonestly, in a way that might require less labour and scheduling,

but that violates the law. I interpret the findings of this study to suggest that because they

have been found to have violated the law before, they are restricted from citing a lack of

readiness to pursue work as a reason to delay doing so—it is suspected to be an excuse, a

way to disguise their laziness or sneakiness. Ex-prisoners are not allowed to be

71

unprepared to work. Upon their release, they are expected to behave in a way deemed as

“normal” as possible—they must strive to conform, despite the fact that from the time

they are imprisoned to the time they are released they are existing in a distinctly abnormal

reality.

Implications

It is within the public’s best interests that former prisoners are properly

rehabilitated and reintegrated into the community following their release from prison, as

this reduces recidivism, thus reducing crime and increasing public safety. Reduced

recidivism would also result in smaller prison populations, ease financial burdens on

taxpayers and the government, and would benefit communities in that they would gain

productive, contributing members.

The findings from this study demonstrate a need for pre-employment

programming, offered both in the institution and in the community. Participants displayed

a clear lack of readiness to begin working, both in terms of employability and their own

personal readiness. For this reason, employment programming should begin within the

institution in order to help individuals become more employable and also to aid them in

developing a mindset conducive to finding work. This programming should address a

wide array of needs. Some incarcerated people have never held employment before and

require support in constructing a resume, looking for work, and preparing for interviews.

Others may have held a white collar position that they are unable to return to due to the

nature of their crime—they might understand how to prepare a resume and how to behave

in interviews, but face navigating the job market anew, aiming for positions with which

72

they likely have little to no experience. Furthermore, as suggested by Scott, work releases

may stand as a solution to helping people feel more ready for work upon re-entering the

community. Work releases allow people to leave the institution and spend time in the

community, thus helping them to reacclimatize to the outside world even while they are

still incarcerated. If work releases were more widely available, perhaps more parolees

would feel ready to seek and accept employment immediately upon release.

It is difficult to reconcile the fact that people may not feel ready to work after

prison with the advantages it may hold in terms of community re-entry and desistance.

But perhaps some other type of generative activity that involves less pressure than formal

employment might function to benefit the ex-prisoner in some of the same ways. For

example, pursuing volunteer positions can demonstrate morality, productivity, and

normalcy, without the same pressures and vulnerabilities of formally applying for a job.

In fact, pursuing generativity though volunteer work may provide individuals with a

greater sense of empowerment than they would receive by accepting a low-status,

repetitive work (Maruna, 2001). As well, Maruna (2001) states that participating in

“…generative roles can expedite the process of obtaining public acceptance” (p. 124).

When people who are known to be ex-prisoners have positive interactions with others in

the community, there is opportunity for the stereotypes attached to their stigmatized label

to be dismantled. The stigma of being a former prisoner overshadows a person’s

education and work experiences to the extent that it becomes a “master status,” (Goffman,

1963) as discussed above; however, stigma can be dissolved through social connection

(Graffam et al., 2004). This demonstrates the importance of working with others and

73

fostering a sense of social connectedness, but also suggests that this is most effective

within jobs or positions that offer opportunity for personal development.

74

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

I conclude my thesis by revisiting my original research questions:

(i) Are people ready to begin working immediately upon release from prison?

(ii) Which factors impact their readiness?

My third question, however, is dependent on finding certain answers to the initial two

questions:

(iii) Why are individuals who identify themselves as not ready for employment

still expected to begin working?

I found that many of the participants in this study were not prepared to begin working

immediately upon release from prison and for a variety of reasons, two of the most

pronounced of which were the stress incited by the prison-to-community transition and

the daunting nature of the job hunt, especially in the cases of participants with limited

employment experiences. Using Goffman’s (1963) theory of stigma, I address the final

question by suggesting that releasees are not allowed to delay their search for

employment due to a lack of readiness because the stereotypes that follow having a

history of criminality discount a person’s credibility. The negative implications that come

with their stigmatized status suggest that they are lazy and untrustworthy, and that

assertions that they are “not ready” may be excuses to delay finding work for more

nefarious reasons.

75

The findings in this study suggest that while employment is important, individuals

may be vulnerable upon release and unprepared to seek employment right away.

Participants were unprepared in terms of employability, and also in terms of personal

readiness to face the labour market. However, many attempted to find work in spite of

this, at the behest of their parole conditions. The experiences of participants in this study

suggest that rushing into employment immediately following release may result in

negative outcomes, such as recidivism, but speculates that personal readiness is not

regarded to be a legitimate barrier to employment due to the stereotypes that inform

others’ beliefs about ex-prisoners.

Many of my findings parallel and support current understandings within the body

of scholarly literature detailing prison-to-work transitions. However, most of the existing

literature is American, and my study demonstrates that these patterns can be replicated in

a Canadian context. Furthermore, my findings are relevant to a broad discussion of what

we, as a society, expect life to look like for people after they are released from prison.

Moral reform, demonstration of desistance, and productivity are expected of individuals

who are released but we often fail to provide the tools that make meeting these goals

possible. With this thesis, I hope to encourage all who give thought to releasees’ lives

after prison to consider the process and the needs of the individual, rather than just their

desired outcome.

76

77

REFERENCES

Adler, P. A. (1992). The “post” phase of deviant careers: Reintegrating drug

traffickers. Deviant Behavior, 13(2), 103-126.

Albright, S., & Denq, F. (1996). Employer attitudes toward hiring ex-offenders. The

Prison Journal, 76(2), 118-137.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Basic books.

Anazodo, K. S., Chan, C., & Ricciardelli, R. (in press). Employment and desistance from

crime. In R. Ricciardelli & A. Peters (Eds.), After prison: Navigating employment and

reintegration. Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier University Press.

Employment Reintegration Collection.

Andress, D., Wildes, T., Rechtine, D., & Moritsugu, K. P. (2004). Jails, prisons, and your

community's health. JL Med. & Ethics, 32, 50.

Armstrong, D., Gosling, A., Weinman, J., & Marteau, T. (1997). The place of inter-rater

reliability in qualitative research: an empirical study. Sociology, 31(3), 597-606.

Atkinson, R., & Rostad, K. A. (2003). Can Inmates become an integral part of the US

workforce?. Urban Institute Press.

Berg, M. T., & Huebner, B. M. (2011). Reentry and the ties that bind: An examination of

social ties, employment, and recidivism. Justice quarterly, 28(2), 382-410.

Blessett, B., & Pryor, M. (2013). The invisible job seeker: The absence of ex-offenders in

discussions of diversity management. Public Administration Quarterly, 433-455.

Borzycki, M. (2005). Interventions for prisoners returning to the community: A report

78

prepared by the Australian Institute of Criminology for the Community Safety and Justice

Branch of the Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department. Canberra,

Australian Institute of Criminology.

Borzycki, M., & Baldry, E. (2003). Promoting integration: the provision of prisoner post-

release services. Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice, (262), 1.

Bottoms, A., & Shapland, J. (2011). Steps towards desistance among male young adult

recidivists. Escape Routes: Contemporary Perspectives on Life After Punishment, 43-80.

Bottoms, A., Shapland, J., Costello, A., Holmes, D., & Muir, G. (2004). Towards

desistance: Theoretical underpinnings for an empirical study. The Howard Journal of

Criminal Justice,43(4), 368-389.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and

code development. Sage.

Chui, W. H., & Cheng, K. K.-Y. (2013). The mark of an ex-prisoner: Perceived

discrimination and self-stigma of young men after prison in Hong Kong. Deviant

Behavior, 34(8), 671–684.

Clow, K. A., & Esses, V. M. (2007). Expectancy effects in social stereotyping: Automatic

and controlled processing in the Neely paradigm. Canadian Journal of Behavioural

Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 39(3), 161.

Clow, K. A., Ricciardelli, R., & Cain, T. L. (2012). Stigma-by-association: Prejudicial

effects of the prison experience for offenders and exonerees. In DW Russell and CA

Russell’s (Eds.) The Psychology of Prejudice: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on

Contemporary Issues (pp. 127-154). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

CSC. (2007, May 30). Education Programs and Services for Offenders. Retrieved from

79

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/acts-and-regulations/720-cd-eng.shtml

CSC. (2014a, March 24). Intake Assessment Process and Correctional Plan Framework.

Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/acts-and-regulations/705-1-cd-eng.shtml

CSC. (2014b, Dec. 1). Types of Release. Retrieved from

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/parole/002007-0003-eng.shtml

CSC. (2015, Nov. 23). Correctional Planning and Criminal Profile. Retrieved from

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/acts-and-regulations/705-6-cd-eng.shtml

CSC. (2016a, March 29). Classification of Institutions.

Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/lois-et-reglements/706-cd-eng.shtmlv

CSC. (2016b, Sept. 19). Conditions of Release. Retrieved form

https://www.canada.ca/en/parole-board/services/parole/conditions-of-release.html

CSC. (2016c, Oct. 31). CORCAN—Employment and Employability. Retrieved from

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/publications/005007-3016-eng.shtml

Cundiff, P. R. (2016). Erasing the Mark of a Criminal Record: Examining the Effect of

Education on Ex-Offender Employment. Corrections, 1(2), 127-138.

Davis, C., Bahr, S. J., & Ward, C. (2013). The process of offender reintegration:

Perceptions of what helps prisoners re-enter society. Criminology & Criminal

Justice, 13(4), 446-469.

Decker, S. H., Spohn, C., Ortiz, N. R., & Hedberg, E. (2014). Criminal stigma, race,

gender and employment: An expanded assessment of the consequences of imprisonment

for employment. Department of Justice

.Https://www.Ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/244756.Pdf

Demleitner, N. V. (2002). Collateral damage: no re-entry for drug offenders. Vill. L.

80

Rev., 47, 1027.

Devaney, T. (2011). Feds recommend ex-cons for hard-to-fill jobs. The Washingtion

Times, July 4 Washington, D.C. Retrieved from

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/4/ex-cons-recommended-for-hard-to-

fill-jobs/

Draine, J., Salzer, M. S., Culhane, D. P., & Hadley, T. R. (2002). Role of social

disadvantage in crime, joblessness, and homelessness among persons with serious mental

illness. Psychiatric Services, 53(5), 565-573.

Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A

hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International

journal of qualitative methods, 5(1), 80-92.

Finn, P. (1998). Successful job placement for ex-offenders: The Center for Employment

Opportunities. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute

of Justice.

Fletcher, D. R. (2001). Ex-Offenders, the labour market and the new public

administration. Public Administration, 79(4), 871-891.

Foster, H., & Hagan, J. (2007). Incarceration and intergenerational social

exclusion. Social Problems, 54(4), 399-433.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punishment.

Gardiner, T. (2012). Prisoners can be honest and motivated workers, Ken Clarke tells

business as he urges the High Street to give ex-offenders jobs. Mail Online, May 4.

Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2139390/Prisoners-honest-

motivated-workers-Ken-Clarke-tells-business-urges-High-Street-ex-offenders-jobs.html

81

Gausel, N., & Thørrisen, M. M. (2014). A theoretical model of multiple stigma: Ostracized for

being an inmate with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in

Criminology and Crime Prevention, 15(1), 89-95.

Giguere, R., & Dundes, L. (2002). Help wanted: A survey of employer concerns about

hiring ex-convicts. Criminal justice policy review, 13(4), 396-408.

Gill, M. (1997). Employing Ex-Offenders: A risk or an opportunity? The Howard Journal

of Criminal Justice, 36(4), 337-351.

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded

theory. Sociology Pr.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. 1967. Weidenfield &

Nicolson, London, 1-19.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on a spoiled identity. Jenkins, JH & Carpenter.

Graffam, J., Shinkfield, A. J., & Hardcastle, L. (2008). The perceived employability of

ex-prisoners and offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative

Criminology, 52(6), 673-685. doi:0306624X07307783 [pii]

Graffam, J., Shinkfield, A., Lavelle, B., & Mcpherson, W. (2004). Variables affecting

successful reintegration as perceived by offenders and professionals. Journal of Offender

Rehabilitation, 40(1-2), 147-171

Griffiths, C. T., Dandurand, Y., & Murdoch, D. (2007). The social reintegration of

offenders and crime prevention. National Crime Prevention Centre.

Retrieved from https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/scl-rntgrtn/scl-rntgrtn-

eng.pdf

Gunnison, E., & Helfgott, J. B. (2013). Offender reentry: Beyond crime and punishment.

82

Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Hamlyn, B., & Lewis, D. (2000). Women Prisoners: A Survey of Their Work and

Training Experiences in Custody and On Release. Home Office Research Study.

Hammett, T. M., Roberts, C., & Kennedy, S. (2001). Health-related issues in prisoner

re-entry. Crime & Delinquency, 47(3), 390-409.

Haney, C. (2003). The psychological impact of incarceration: Implications for post-prison

adjustment. Prisoners once removed: The impact of incarceration and reentry on

children, families, and communities, 33, 66.

Harding, D. J. (2003). Jean valjean's dilemma: The management of ex-convict identity in

the search for employment. Deviant Behavior, 24(6), 571-595.

Harlow, C.W. (2003). Education and correctional populations. Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Special Report. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.

Harris, P. M., & Keller, K. S. (2005). Ex-offenders need not apply: The criminal

background check in hiring decisions. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1),

6-30.

Harrison, B., & Schehr, R. C. (2004). Offenders and post-release jobs: Variables

influencing success and failure. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39(3), 35-68.

Henry, K. (2000, August 13). A tight labor market is boon to ex-convicts. The Baltimore

Sun, pp. 1D, 4D.

Holzer, H. J., Raphael, S., & Stoll, M. A. (2006). Perceived criminality, criminal

83

background checks, and the racial hiring practices of employers. The Journal of Law and

Economics, 49(2), 451-480.

Homant, R. J. (1984). Employment of ex-offenders: The role of prisonization and self-

esteem. Journal of Offender Counseling Services Rehabilitation, 8(3), 5-23.

James, S.A., LaCroix, A.Z., Kleinbaum, D.G., Strogatz, D.S. (1984). John Henryism and blood

pressure differences among black men: II. The role of occupational stressors. Journal of

Behavioral Medicine, 7(3), 259-275.

Jolson, M. A. (1975). Are ex-offenders successful employees? California Management

Review, 17(3), 65-73.

Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (1993). Turning points in the life course: Why change

matters to the study of crime. Criminology, 31(3), 301-325.

Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2001). Understanding desistance from crime. Crime and

Justice, 1-69.

LeBel, T. P. (2012). Invisible stripes? formerly incarcerated persons' perceptions of

stigma. Deviant Behavior, 33(2), 89-107.

LeBel, T. P., Burnett, R., Maruna, S., & Bushway, S. (2008). The “chicken and egg” of

subjective and social factors in desistance from crime. European Journal of

Criminology, 5(2), 131-159.

Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology: Systematic approaches to the study of

sociopathic behavior. Crime and Deviance: Essays and Innovations of Edwin M. Lemert.

Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge University Press.

Lösel, F., & Farrington, D. P. (2012). Direct protective and buffering protective factors in

84

the development of youth violence. American journal of preventive medicine, 43(2), S8-

S23.

Luyckx, K., Schwartz, S. J., Goossens, L., & Pollock, S. (2008). Employment, sense of

coherence, and identity formation contextual and psychological processes on the pathway

to sense of adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23(5), 566-591.

MacLin, M. K., & Herrera, V. (2006). The criminal stereotype. North American Journal

of Psychology, 8(2), 197-208.

Mallik-Kane, K., & Visher, C. A. (2008). Health and prisoner reentry: How physical,

mental, and substance abuse conditions shape the process of reintegration (p. 82).

Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.

Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their

lives. American Psychological Association.

Maruna, S., & Toch, H. (2005). The impact of imprisonment on the desistance

process. Prisoner reentry and crime in America, 139-178.

Maruna, S., LeBel, T., Naples, M., & Mitchell, N. (2009). Looking-glass identity

transformation: Pygmalion and golem in the rehabilitation process. How Offenders

Transform their Lives, , 30-55.

Mukamal, D. (2001). From hard time to full time: Strategies to help move ex-offenders

from welfare to work. US Department of Labor, 15-16.

Murphy, D. S., Fuleihan, B., Richards, S. C., & Jones, R. S. (2011). The electronic

“scarlet letter”: Criminal backgrounding and a perpetual spoiled identity. Journal of

Offender Rehabilitation, 50(3), 101-118.

Myrick, A. (2013). Facing your criminal record: Expungement and the collateral problem

85

of wrongfully represented self. Law & Society Review, 47(1), 73-104.

Nolan, A., Wilton, G., & Cousineau, C. (2014). Outcomes for offender employment

programs: Assessing CORCAN participation Correctional Service of Canada.

Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American journal of sociology, 108(5),

937-975.

Pager, D. (2007). Marked: Race. Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass

Incarceration, 69-71.

Pager, D., & Quillian, L. (2005). Walking the talk? what employers say versus what they

do. American Sociological Review, 70(3), 355-380.

Pager, D., Western, B., & Sugie, N. (2009). Sequencing disadvantage: Barriers to

employment facing young black and white men with criminal records. The ANNALS of

the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 623(1), 195-213.

Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford

University Press.

Petersilia, J. (2005). Hard time: Ex-offenders returning home after prison. Corrections

Today, 67(2), 66-71.

Pogorzelski, W., Wolff, N., Pan, K. Y., & Blitz, C. L. (2005). Behavioral health

problems, ex-offender reentry policies, and the “Second Chance Act”. American Journal

of Public Health, 95(10), 1718-1724.

Pryor, M., & Thompkins, D. E. (2013). The disconnect between education and social

opportunity for the formerly incarcerated. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(3),

457-479.

Rahill-Beuler, C. M., & Kretzer, K. M. (1997). Helping offenders find employment. Fed.

86

Probation, 61, 35.

Raphael, S. (2006). Should criminal history records be universally

available? Criminology & Public Policy, 5(3), 515-522.

Rasmusen, E. (1996). Stigma and self-fulfilling expectations of criminality. The Journal

of Law and Economics, 39(2), 519-543.

Reitano, J. (2016). Adult correctional statistics in Canada, 2014/2015. Juristat: Canadian

Centre for Justice Statistics, 3B.

Ricciardelli, R. (2014). Surviving Incarceration: Inside Canadian Prisons. Wilfrid

Laurier Univ. Press.

Ricciardelli, R., & Moir, M. (2013). Stigmatized among the stigmatized: Sex offenders in

Canadian penitentiaries. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 55(3),

353-386.

Richards, S. C., & Jones, R. S. (2004). Beating the perpetual incarceration machine:

Overcoming structural impediments to re-entry. After Crime and Punishment: Pathways

to Offender Reintegration, , 201-232.

Rosenfeld, R., Petersilia, J., & Visher, C. (2008). The first days after release can make a

difference. Corrections Today, 70(3), 86-87.

Rossi, P. H., Berk, R. A., & Lenihan, K. J. (1980). Money, Work and Crime: Some

Experimental Results.

Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1992). Crime and deviance in the life course. Annual

Review of Sociology, 18(1), 63-84.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1995). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points

87

through life. Harvard University Press.

Scott, T. (2010). Offender perceptions on the value of employment. Journal of

Correctional Education, 61(1), 46-67.

Service Ontario. (2017, Feb. 27). Ontario Photo Card. Retrieved from

https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-photo-card

Shapiro, J.P. (2000, November 6). Employers look to the joint to fill jobs. U.S. News &

World Report, p. 70.

Shivy, V. A., Wu, J. J., Moon, A. E., Mann, S. C., Holland, J. G., & Eacho, C. (2007).

Ex-offenders reentering the workforce. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(4), 466.

Skardhamar, T., & Savolainen, J. (2014). Changes in criminal offending around the time

of job entry: A study of employment and desistance. Criminology, 52(2), 263-291.

Statistics Canada. (2015). Adult Correctional Statistics in Canada, 2013/2014. Juristat:

85-002-x. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14163-

eng.htm

Swanson, S. J., Langfitt-Reese, S., & Bond, G. R. (2012). Employer attitudes about

criminal histories. Psychiatric rehabilitation journal, 35(5), 385.

Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner re-entry. The

Urban Institute.

Travis, J., & Petersilia, J. (2001). Reentry reconsidered: A new look at an old

question. NCCD news, 47(3), 291-313.

Travis, J., Solomon, A. L., & Waul, M. (2001). From prison to home: The dimensions

and consequences of prisoner reentry. Report for The Urban Institute.

Tripodi, S. J., Kim, J. S., & Bender, K. (2010). Is employment associated with reduced

88

recidivism? The complex relationship between employment and crime. International

Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(5), 706-720.

Uggen, C. (2000). Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: A duration

model of age, employment, and recidivism. American Sociological Review, , 529-546.

Varghese, F. P., Hardin, E. E., & Bauer, R. L. (2009). Factors influencing the

employability of Latinos: The roles of ethnicity, criminal history, and qualifications. Race

and Social Problems, 1(3), 171-181.

Varghese, F. P., Hardin, E. E., Bauer, R. L., & Morgan, R. D. (2010). Attitudes Toward

Hiring Offenders: The Roles of Criminal History, Job Qualifications, and

Race. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(5),

769-782.

Visher, C. A., Debus, S., & Yahner, J. (2008). Employment after prison: A longitudinal

study of releases in three states. Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.

Visher, C. A., Debus-Sherrill, S. A., & Yahner, J. (2011). Employment after prison: A

longitudinal study of former prisoners. Justice Quarterly, 28(5), 698-718.

Visher, C. A., Kachnowski, V., La Vigne, N. G., & Travis, J. (2004). Baltimore prisoners'

experiences returning home. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Visher, C. A., Winterfield, L., & Coggeshall, M. B. (2005). Ex-offender employment

programs and recidivism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(3),

295-316.

Waldfogel, J. (1994). The effect of criminal conviction on income and the trust" reposed

in the workmen". Journal of Human Resources, 62-81.

Webster, R., Hedderman, C., Turnbull, P. J., & May, T. (2001). Building bridges to

89

employment for prisoners. The Communication and Development Unit, London,

England: Home Office.

Western, B., Kling, J. R., & Weiman, D. F. (2001). The labor market consequences of

incarceration. NCCD news, 47(3), 410-427.

Winnick, T. A., & Bodkin, M. (2008). Anticipated stigma and stigma management among

those to be labeled “ex-con”. Deviant Behavior, 29(4), 295-333.